Up
Research cycle
Stats
Thesis writing
About research
Data_sources_Stats
Resources
Simulation & Gaming:
An Interdisciplinary Journal
+++
| |
The research proposal
From
http://www.earthresearch.com/thesis-dissertation-proposal.shtml
"Down to Earth" Research Advice
Written for you by Dr J. Mark Tippett,
www.earthresearch.com
The thesis/dissertation research proposal:
What is it, what is in it, and why is it?
What is it?
After you have identified the general sub-discipline in which you want to
study, you will be expected to develop a research proposal. The research
proposal is a statement of research intent. The length of the proposal will vary
between departments; final year undergraduate dissertation proposals may range
from 2-5 pages, and graduate or postgraduate (Masters) theses and (PhD)
dissertations from 5-15 and 25-40 pages respectively.
What’s in it?
Some departments have a standard pro forma proposal guide with its elements
already specified. The proposal should include the following elements:
The specific academic research problem to be addressed
The research "problem" is most likely to come from your own imaginative and
critical thinking in combination with a close examination of the relevant
literature. You should aim at identifying gaps or deficiencies in the level of
knowledge and understanding within the proposed topic area. Often, published
research papers hint at these research "needs" or "opportunities" in their
discussion or conclusion sections; these ‘needs’ are essentially research areas
that the author(s) consider to be worthy of attention. The significance of
various research problems is able to be measured by your supervisors, by experts
in your field as evidenced by the amount and nature of research being done on
those topics, and by yourself using your own improving judgement.
The identification of a topic that is researchable and sufficient and
appropriate for study is probably the hardest step in the whole research
process, particularly for novice researchers. The final-year undergraduate
research project/dissertation is usually the first taste of real research for
many students, and creating a researchable problem is generally a difficult
experience. In this level of project, it is not necessary to address the
significant research topics expected of, say, a PhD. However, whatever the level
of study, the correct degree of focus is vital; generally, initial attempts to
define a research topic are usually far too broad and vague, and if pursued
would result in an unmanageable project. Focus is therefore the key to a good
research topic, whatever the level of the degree. Often, it is best to try 2 or
3 research topics and develop each into a mini-proposal. You can get some
feedback as to which may be most suitable, and then develop the favored research
idea into a full-blown proposal.
Many supervisors have appropriate and interesting topics available, and are
often looking for suitable students to fill these projects and focus the topics.
Enthusiastic supervisory attention is usually a feature of these projects.
The objectives, questions or hypotheses to be answered
The research problem, when phrased, gives purpose to the intended work. There
are 3 major ways to phrase the research problem: by using objectives, questions
or hypotheses.
Objectives are pithy statements of what is intended to be achieved, thereby
answering the research problem. For example, a hypothetical objective might be
"To determine the influence of bushfire intensity on soil phosphorus mobility in
the Mt Highup area".
Questions are probably the most basic expression of the research problem, and
the equivalent question may simply be "Does bushfire intensity affect soil
phosphorus mobility in the Mt Highup area (and if so, how)?"
Hypotheses are conjectures that are set up and shown to be false or not
untrue (if you are into critical rationalism). Hypotheses come in pairs, the
null and alternative hypotheses. The equivalent null hypothesis would be
"Bushfire intensity does not influence soil phosphorus mobility" (remove the
word "not" to produce the alternative hypothesis). I favor using objectives and
questions. Hypothesis-formation is popular, but often hypotheses can often end
up sounding rather contrived and robotic.
You should always be asking yourself questions about your own topic to refine
it and check its feasibility. Some questions to think about with respect to this
hypothetical bushfire topic may include: What is the importance of the problem,
either academically within the existing literature, or practically with respect
to local or regional environmental problems? Is bushfire intensity, in theory, a
likely physical mechanism for explaining temporal and spatial variation in soil
phosphorus mobility? Is it likely that the effects of bushfire intensity can
actually be separated from the other numerous influences on phosphorus mobility
using an appropriate research framework? Why study this at Mt Highup – is this
area particularly affected by bushfires or phosphorus mobility, or does the area
have favorable characteristics that enable a general research problem to be
effectively studied and answered? Etc...
A summary of the existing research to provide a context for your own research
This is as revealed by a bibliography and brief literature review. Unlike for
the thesis proper, this is not a full-blown review. It should concentrate on the
major research papers that surround the topic. The review must show how the
proposed research problem has emerged out of the existing literature, thereby
pointing to the rationale for the study. The literature search itself, however,
should be a comprehensive one, using the usual online databases, abstracting
systems and research paper reference lists. It needs to be comprehensive to
allow a thorough familiarization with the breadth and depth of the knowledge
base for the topic. Also, you will make sure that no one has already researched
your exact topic, although the chances of this are slight.
The types of data to be used
Unless your project does not need data, you will need to identify the sources
and types of data needed to help answer the research problem. Fundamental
questions need to be asked such as: What data are needed? Do the data already
exist and can they be obtained? If so, what are their characteristics – data
quality, resolution, precision, accuracy, coverage, age, etc? Are the
characteristics suited to, and sufficient for, the study? Do data need to be
collected? If so, what variables need to be measured? The data sources and
characteristics need to be established early on, to identify the requirements of
any new data to be generated, and to enable existing and new data to complement
each other in terms of coverage, resolution, etc.
The methods and procedures to be employed to answer the original objectives
This includes a description of the broad research methodology, data
collection procedures, experimental procedures, sampling strategies, and
analysis framework. The methods need to enable you to address the research
question(s), and you should critically discuss the range of methods available
and justify those that you will use in preference to the others. Methods may be
standards already established in the literature, or you may need to customize
them for your particular study. Sampling strategies are important because they
will constrain the nature and effectiveness of the data analysis and statistical
methods used later in your project. In addition, you will waste time and effort
if you over-sample, and will find out very little if you under-sample or sample
in an ineffective or inappropriate manner.
The anticipated or expected (scientific) outcomes of the work
These outcomes are frequently phrased in terms such as: "The study will
provide increased knowledge of the relationship between bushfire intensity and
soil phosphorus mobility"; "The proposed research will lead to better
understanding of the processes that cause phosphorus depletion in soils"; "The
study will establish a methodological framework applicable to studies of soil
phosphorus in tropical areas"; and "The work will generate a substantial
database useful for soil management strategies in the Mt Highup area, and will
provide a baseline against which future studies can compare" etc. Get the idea?
Ideally your study should have several anticipated outcomes.
An action plan that shows project tasks
This is a chart or table showing activity over time. The different activities
can overlap, i.e., you can do more than one thing at a time. You need to think
about the various stages of your particular project, and impart some realism
into the time frame, i.e., things always take longer to do than you anticipate.
An outline example for an 18-month project could be:
Preliminary literature search Oct-Dec 2003
Proposal construction Nov-Dec 2003
Proposal revision Dec 2003
Pilot study fieldwork Jan 2004
Data collection and fieldwork Feb-May 2004
Write literature review May-Jul 2004
Data analysis Jun-Sep 2004
Write the thesis Oct 2004 – Feb/Mar 2005
Completion – hand in Mar 2005
Why is it?
The proposal, as a statement of research intent, is necessary to identify the
research problem and the methods utilized to answer it. The proposal enables an
appropriate framework to be set up to address a suitable research problem and
provides a strategy for doing a thesis or dissertation. The proposal is a major
part of the whole research project, and should not be seen as something to be
skipped over. Investing time and effort at this stage is well worth it – an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure later on when the shortcomings of a
poor proposal are revealed months further into the project. The proposal allows
weaknesses and deficiencies of the project to be identified and strengthened,
and although unforeseen problems do arise during research, they should be less
numerous and less serious if the proposal was well thought through.
The proposal should be developed with the guidance of your supervisors or
advisors. At the proposal stage, other personnel are likely to be appointed to
your supervision. Supervisory arrangements vary between countries, and between
institutions and departments. The most common situations are the appointment of
a second (assistant) supervisor, or the appointment of a thesis "committee"
comprising 3 or more members. These people should have fields of interest that
are related to your research, and may variously be academic members of your
department, or of departments in allied disciplines within the university, or
professionals from outside the university. An external assistant supervisor may
be appointed if your project is part of a larger research program being
conducted between academic members of your department and an associated industry
or research organization.
Your research proposal would usually be submitted to your department for
perusal and approval. They should consider the appropriateness of the topic and
problem, the academic soundness of the proposal, the suitability of the methods,
the realism of the action plan for the work, and the supervisory arrangements.
The department (or a departmental sub-committee) may give outright approval of
the proposed project, or give approval with comments and caveats, or give
disapproval and ask for a substantially revised (or completely new) proposal.
The suggestions and rulings of such a committee should be taken seriously, as
you will be unable to undertake the proposed study without its approval. The
scrutiny of your proposal by academic staff should reveal any shortcomings,
risks or defective reasoning in your study, which if sorted out prior to the
main project will increase its chances of being successfully completed.
Successful completion is what both you and your department desire.
From
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/writecenter/web/thesis.html
Thesis writing
by Craig Waddell
Introduction
As far as I know, there's no etymological connection between thesis and
Theseus, but there is a metaphoric one. Theseus, mythical hero of ancient
Greece, found his way through the Cretan Labyrinth by following a thread.
Likewise, a thesis allows both reader and writer to find their ways through a
labyrinth of ideas by following a thread of thought. That is, a thesis
crystallizes the controlling idea of an essay and, thus, helps us to keep track
of that idea as it develops through the body of the text. If we were not able to
formulate theses and to understand and evaluate the theses of others, we would
be hopelessly lost amidst a maze of chaotic impressions, for there is no
structure to experience exclend that imposed by the human mind.
When we formulate theses, we make
experience comprehensible: we organize the chaos. As researchers, we begin to
pick up facts and experiences that are relevant to our theses--just as magnets
pick up iron filings--and we leave what is irrelevant behind. Thus, for both
reader and writer, a thesis cuts through immense confusion to make one point
perfectly clear. A good thesis, then, is essential to a well-written analytical
essay, and at least four things are essential to a good thesis: it must be
clearly defined, adequately focused, well supported, and relatively high in the
orders of knowledge.
Defining Your Thesis
Like topic sentences, theses can be simple (stated explicitly, either in one
sentence or in several consecutive sentences), delayed-completion (begun in one
sentence and completed at some point later in the essay), assembled (scattered
in bits and pieces throughout the essay), or inferred (never explicitly
stated--left for the reader to surmise) (Braddock, 310-323). But however the
thesis is presented, it should be clearly defined, or, in the case of an
inferred thesis, clearly definable. Even if you have chosen to use a
delayed-completion, assembled, or inferred thesis, you should be able to
articulate that thesis in a simple, explicit statement.
Two things happen when you fail to
define your thesis clearly:
- First, you don't know what you
have committed yourself to--in fact, you may not have committed yourself to
anything. As a result, your paper lacks unity. A unified essay is one in which
all of your arguments, directly or indirectly, support your thesis. (Although
good writers do acknowledge opposing points of view and may even
concede a point here or there, they usually do so for rhetorical purposes--to
enhance their own credibility by indicating that they are aware of and capable
of responding to opposing views.) If you have not defined your thesis clearly,
you will not know what your arguments should support. Consequently, you will
ramble: some of your arguments will be irrelevant to any thesis your readers
might infer; others will be contradictory. Whatever unity you achieve will be
largely accidental.
- The second consequence of an
inadequately defined thesis stems directly from the first: when you don't know
what you have committed yourself to, your essay lacks unity, and your readers
have no thread to help them find their way through your thoughts. As you
ramble, your readers grope.
Focusing Your Thesis
A thesis can be clearly defined and still lead to a rambling essay if it is not
adequately focused. A good thesis narrows your topic to an idea that you can
successfully develop within the framework of your essay. From the general topic
of health hazards, you might propose a thesis such as, "The average American is
exposed to many health hazards." This thesis, though clearly defined, is so
broad that you would never be able to cover it adequately in a short essay. You
would wind up either jumping from one health hazard to another, discussing each
only superficially, or zeroing in on one or two health hazards and, thus,
failing to demonstrate your own thesis. A more narrowly focused thesis, such as
"The Constitution of the United States should be amended to prohibit the
production and sale of cigarettes," commits you to an idea that you can
carefully analyze and defend in four or five pages.
Supporting Your Thesis
The third requirement of a good thesis, that it be well supported, might more
properly be considered a requirement of the essay as a whole. In any case, if
the essay is to be effective--if it is to persuade readers of your thesis, or at
least of your credibility--you must provide arguments that are cogent and
numerous enough to satisfy the critical reader, and you must go on to support
these arguments with facts and examples.
Orders of Knowledge
The fourth requirement of a good thesis is that it be relatively high in the
orders of knowledge. Benjamin Bloom divides cognitive skills into five basic
categories and arranges those categories (in ascending order of complexity) into
the following hierarchy: comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation (Bloom, 204-207). In a similar hierarchy, Mortimer Adler divides
knowledge into three classes: statements of facts, statements about facts, and
statements about statements (Adler, 222-224). If your thesis falls at the lowest
level of either of these hierarchies, your paper will be nothing more than a
report or a survey. This is fine if that's all you intend your paper to be. But
if you intend your paper to be more than a report, you must develop a thesis
that is more than a statement of fact.
For example, if your "thesis" is
that "In experiments conducted by the American Cancer Institue, 70 percent of
the rats subjected to cigarette smoke over a two-year period died of lung
cancer," your paper can hardly develop into anything more than a report about
the experiments and their results. However, if you draw some conclusion from
this statement of fact and make that your thesis, you advance to Adler's second
order of knowledge: statements about facts. At this level, your thesis might be
"Scientific experiments suggest a close link between cigarette smoking and lung
cancer," or a less cautious assertion, "Cigarette smoking is the major cause of
lung cancer." With either of these theses, you have an argument on your hands.
You have made a statement that is not entirely self-evident, one that will not
be universally agreed with, one that you will have to defend. But if you risk
one step further and make a statement about this statement, you generate the
spark of a potentially informative, provocative, and animated essay. For
example, building on the proposition that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer,
you might propose that the Constitution of the United States be amended to
prohibit the production and sale of cigarettes.
Adler would classify theses of this
order as statements about statements. As such, they not only encourage more
stimulating essays, they also allow you to develop your essay logically by
referring back to statements at the two lower levels: you present arguments
(statements about facts) to support your thesis, and facts and examples
(statements of fact) to support your arguments. For example, to support the
thesis that the Constitution should be amended to prohibit the production and
sale of cigarettes, you can draw upon the argument that cigarette smoking causes
lung cancer; and to support this argument, you can draw upon the fact that in
ACI experiments, 70 percent of the rats subjected to cigarette smoke died of
lung cancer. Thus, theses that are statements about statements allow you to
develop a layered effect that is impossible to achieve in a report or survey.
Tentative and Definitive Theses
Finally, there is an important distinction between a tentative and a definitive
thesis. A tentative or working thesis is often valuable in the early stages of
the writing process in that it guides your inquiry into your subject, suggesting
questions, problems, and strategies. The best definitive theses, however,
generally come late in the writing process. Hence, the writing process is not
simply a means of codifying what you already know; it is a means of pushing
beyond the commonplace, of exhausting the obvious, and of discovering what it is
you ultimately want to say.
A good thesis, though essential to
a good analytical essay, is not a panacea for sloppy exposition--there are
scores of other things you must consider as you compose (such as style, syntax,
organization, originality, punctuation, and diction). However, developing a
thesis that is clearly expressed, adequately focused, well supported, and high
in the orders of knowledge goes a long way toward ensuring the success of your
essay.
REFERENCES
- Adler, Mortimer. Dialectic.
London: Kegan Paul, 1927.
- Bloom, Benjamin, ed.
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I. New York: David McKay,
1956.
- Braddock, Richard. "The
Frequency and Placement of Topic Sentences in Expository Prose." The
Writing Teacher's Sourcebook. Ed. Gary Tate and Edward P. J. Corbett.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
From
http://www.cs.sjsu.edu/100w/html/literature_review.html
Table 1. Rubric for the Literature Review for
Research Theory and Practice
|
CATEGORY |
Excellent=90-100% |
Good=80-89% |
Needs Improvement
=70-79% |
Unacceptable
=below 70% |
|
Amount of Information |
Information gathered from a wide variety of
resources. Approaches to the problem explored from many perspectives.
|
Information gathered from several resources.
Approaches to the problem explored from a few perspectives. |
Information gathered using a few resources.
Approaches to the problem explored from one or two perspectives.
|
Many resources for gathering information
ignored. Many approaches ignored. |
|
Organization |
Information is organized coherently,
presenting a well-reasoned argument that concludes with a recommendation for
a future research strategy. |
Information presents a coherent argument and
concludes with a recommendation for future research. |
Information presents a recommendation for a
future research strategy but needs additional work on building an argument.
|
Information is disorganized, does not
provide an argument that recommends a research strategy. |
|
Quality of Information |
Information clearly relates to the problem
under consideration. It demonstrates thorough familiarity with multiple
strategies for solving the problem and provides supporting detail.
|
Information clearly relates to the problem
under consideration. It demonstrates some familiarity with the strategies
for solving the problem and provides supporting detail. |
Information clearly relates to the problem
under consideration. It demonstrates some familiarity with the strategies
for solving the problem, but it needs additional supporting detail.
|
Information does not clearly relate to the
problem under consideration. It demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the
strategies common to library science and lacks supporting detail
|
|
Use of Bibliographic database and
Internet Resources |
The search strategy described demonstrates
the use of a wide variety of reference resources, including print, online,
and general Internet resources appropriate for the problem under
consideration. |
The search strategy describe demonstrates
the use of many reference resources, including print, online, and general
Internet resources. |
The search strategy described demonstrates
the use of a few reference resources, including print, online, and general
Internet resources. |
The search strategy described demonstrates
the use of an inadequate number of resources; it ignores the use of one of
the following: print, online, or general Internet resources. |
|
Mechanics |
No grammatical, spelling, or punctuation
errors. Sentences use Standard English. Paragraphs are well structured, and
sections of the paper progress logically to a well-supported conclusion
|
Almost no grammatical, spelling, or
punctuation errors. Sentences use Standard English. Most paragraphs are
structured to carry the argument forward logically to the conclusion. The
conclusion is generally supported by the rest of the paper. |
A few grammatical, spelling, or punctuation
errors. Some sentences include non-Standard English usage. Some paragraphs
are not well-structured and do not carry the argument to the conclusion. The
conclusion is marginally supported by the rest of the paper. |
Many grammatical, spelling, or punctuation
errors. Sentences include non-Standard English usage. Paragraphs include
unrelated details and do not carry a coherent argument to the conclusion.
The conclusion is not supported by the rest of the paper. |
|
Sources |
All sources are accurately and fully
documented, organized alphabetically, and presented in APA style. The
mechanics of that style are without error. |
All sources are accurately and fully
documented, organized alphabetically, and are presented in APA style. Only a
few citations include mechanical errors. |
All sources are accurately documented,
organized alphabetically, and presented in APA style. Many citations include
mechanical errors. |
Some sources are not documented, errors
occur in alphabetization of the reference list, and many citations include
mechanical errors. |
Table 2. Assessment Rubric/Criteria for
Literature Review
|
Criteria and qualities |
Poor |
Good |
Excellent |
Point Value |
|
Introducing the idea: Problem statement |
Neither implicit nor explicit reference is
made to the topic that is to be examined. |
Readers are aware
of the overall problem, challenge, or topic that is to be examined. |
The topic is
introduced, and groundwork is laid as to the direction of the report. |
Up to 10 points |
|
Body:
Flow of the report |
The report appears to have no direction,
with subtopics appearing disjointed. |
There is a basic
flow from one section to the next, but not all sections or paragraphs follow
in a natural or logical order. |
The report goes
from general ideas to specific conclusions. Transitions tie sections
together, as well as adjacent paragraphs. |
Up to 20 points |
|
Coverage of content |
Major sections of pertinent content have
been omitted or greatly run-on. The topic is of little significance to the
educational/training field. |
All major sections
of the pertinent content are included, but not covered in as much depth, or
as explicit, as expected. Significance to educational/training field is
evident. |
The appropriate
content in consideration is covered in depth without being redundant.
Sources are cited when specific statements are made. Significance is
unquestionable. The report is between 1,000 and 2,000 words. |
Up to 20 points |
|
Clarity of writing and writing
technique |
It is hard to know what the writer is trying
to express. Writing is convoluted. Misspelled words, incorrect grammar, and
improper punctuation are evident. |
Writing is
generally clear, but unnecessary words are occasionally used. Meaning is
sometimes hidden. Paragraph or sentence structure is too repetitive. |
Writing is crisp,
clear, and succinct. The writer incorporates the active voice when
appropriate. The use of pronouns, modifiers, parallel construction, and
non-sexist language are appropriate. |
Up to 20 points |
|
Conclusion:
A synthesis of ideas and hypothesis or research question |
There is no indication the author tried to
synthesize the information or make a conclusion based on the literature
under review. No hypothesis or research question is provided. |
The author
provides concluding remarks that show an analysis and synthesis of ideas
occurred. Some of the conclusions, however, were not supported in the body
of the report. The hypothesis or research question is stated. |
The author was
able to make succinct and precise conclusions based on the review. Insights
into the problem are appropriate. Conclusions and the hypothesis or research
question are strongly supported in the report. |
Up to 10 points |
|
Citations/References:
Proper APA format |
Citations for statements included in the
report were not present, or references which were included were not found in
the text. |
Citations within
the body of the report and a corresponding reference list were presented.
Some formatting problems exist, or components were missing. |
All needed
citations were included in the report. References matched the citations, and
all were encoded in APA format. |
Up to 10 points |
|
Timeliness |
Material was submitted more than one class
late. |
Material was
submitted up to one class late. |
Material is
submitted on time. |
Up to 10 points |
Academic Thesis
Proofreading provides professional editing and
proofreading services for graduate, undergraduate and international students.
http://www.thesisproofreading.com/
|
by
Alison Miller, Ph.D.
-
Be aware of and manage negative beliefs that contribute to
feelings of inadequacy & procrastination.
- Graduate students often have
negative thoughts such as, “I am not smart enough,” “I don’t
have what it takes to do a dissertation,” “I am a fraud,” “The
faculty made a mistake accepting me into this program,” “I am
lazy,” or other thoughts about being inadequate in some way.
Negative thoughts lead to a poor relationship to your
dissertation and fuel procrastination.
- Remember that it is a normal part of
being a graduate student to feel inadequate at times. All human
beings have negative thoughts about themselves. Doing a
dissertation is, by definition, a very challenging intellectual
task that will elicit feelings of self-doubt and inadequacy.
- Learn to challenge negative thoughts.
Ask yourself if they are really true? What evidence is there
that they are not true? Learn to stop taking your negative
thoughts so seriously. Just because you have a negative thought
about yourself does not mean it is true!
- Create structure to break down
your dissertation into small, specific pieces.
It is important to find a way to stop
relating to your dissertation as one, large entity (because that
leads to feeling overwhelmed and inadequate). Use the timeline and
action list structure (see attached handouts) as one possible way
to alter your relationship to your dissertation.
- A timeline consists of breaking
down your dissertation into major milestones over time. A
milestone is a large chunk of your dissertation (e.g., a chapter,
writing a section of your literature review, completing data
collection, establishing a dissertation committee, obtaining IRB
approval). See the attached examples of dissertation milestones.
In any given week or month, you are working towards a set of
milestones instead of working on your DISSERTATION as one, large
entity. Make sure that your timeline is realistic. It can be
challenging but it must also be realistic.
- If possible, share your
timeline with your advisor to get his or her support and
feedback on whether it is realistic.
- If you get off track from your
timeline, REVISE IT! A timeline that is not based in reality
will undermine you and contribute to avoidance and
procrastination. Most people need to revise their timeline many
times throughout the process of doing a dissertation.
- Once you’ve created a timeline,
the next step is to make an action list each week where you
break your milestones down into small, specific actions. An
action should have a clear, specific beginning and an end.
- An action such as “read about
social support theories” is not a specific action. It is vague
and open-ended. But read Jones & Smith (1999) article on social
support is a clear, specific action with a beginning and an end.
- If at any time, you get off
track from your action list, REVISE IT!
-
Have someone else hold you accountable for what you say you are
going to do
This strategy can have a significant
impact on the progress you make
- Ask a peer or friend (preferably
not your spouse or significant other) to hold you accountable
for what you say you are going to do. It is much easier to
keep your word and do the actions on your action list if
you’ve made a commitment to another person.
- Recognize that there may be times
during the dissertation process when you need more
accountability than others.
- Maintain weekly contact with someone
else who is willing to hold you accountable for making
progress.
-
Social support
- Doing a dissertation is
challenging and at times stressful. Having emotional support
from friends and family can help you cope more effectively.
Don’t be afraid to ask for the support you need.
- Instrumental support
- Ask for the intellectual
support you need from your advisor, other faculty/chairpersons,
peers, and colleagues. Many graduate students believe that
they must do their dissertation alone and that asking for help
is a sign of weakness. Yet, talking through the inevitable
intellectual roadblocks in the dissertation process can help
you maintain momentum, overcome roadblocks, and do better
quality work. Don’t be afraid of looking stupid. You aren’t
asking someone else to do your dissertation for you. Rather,
you are asking for the support you need to do your best
intellectual work.
- There are times during the
dissertation process where you may need extra help with
household chores, childcare, or other aspects of daily life.
Ask for the help you need from friends and significant others.
-
Self-care is extremely important when you are in graduate school.
You need and deserve to engage in pleasurable activities to
restore yourself and sustain motivation. Give yourself
permission to do things that you enjoy and find pleasurable.
Self-care does not have to be elaborate and take a lot of time.
Simple activities like taking a short walk, listening to music
you enjoy, or even doing deep breathing are all acts of
self-care.
-
Avoid falling into the trap of telling yourself that you’ll take
good care of yourself once you finish your dissertation. Stop
putting your life on hold. ;
-
The more that you use the timeline and action plan structure,
the easier it will be to develop the ability to set aside time
to take care of yourself.
June 24, 2002
1) Research questions and measures given to advisor
July 1, 2002
1) IRB process and potential committee members discussed with
advisor
2) Feedback on research questions from advisor obtained
3) Draft of model to be tested created
July 15, 2002
1) Literature review (reading) complete on maternal depression
2) Participants and measures section of method written&
August 1, 2002
1) Section written on relationship between maternal depression &
childhood/adolescent depression
2) Committee established
August 8, 2002
1) Literature on developmental trajectories of depression in
adolescents read
August 20, 2002
1) Section of development of depression in adolescents complete
2) Study purpose and model revised and FINALIZED3) Meeting set up
next week with stats person to review my ideas for analyses
August 27, 2002
1) Section of parenting (psych and behavioral control) written
2) Internship interest letters written & sent out- determine more
detailed list of sites
3) Meeting with stats person from committee held4) Timeline
Revised/Refined as needed
September 4, 2002
1) Section written on development of sexual behavior in
adolescence
2) Have read about structural equation modeling/regression models
to determine what type of analyses are most appropriate for
research questions
3) Ideas for analysis on paper sketched out on paper
4) Outline for peer influence and HIV risk/sexual risk-taking
complete
September 12, 2002
1) Section written on relationship between depression and sexual
risk-taking (in adolescence and/or adults)
2) Another meeting with stats person held
3) Full draft of participants, measures and procedure complete4)
Meeting held with Advisor to review proposed analyses
September 19, 2002
1) Draft of section on peer factors and HIV risk written
2) Introduction integrated, complete
3) Intro and methods sent to Advisor
October 1, 2002
1) Proposed analyses section written and sent to Advisor
2) Feedback received from Advisor
3) First draft of internship essays complete
4) All requests for letters of recommendation for internship made
to faculty/supervisors
October 10, 2002
1) Feedback from Advisor etc. integrated
2) Entire draft given to Advisor
3) Feedback obtained on internship essays
October 20, 2002
1) Feedback received from Advisor etc.
2) Tables, figures, references checked and finalized
3) Internship essays revised and complete
October 25th, 2002
1) Internship applications complete and sent out for those with
11/1 deadline
November 2, 2002
1) Remaining internship applications complete and sent out for
11/15 deadline
November 10, 2002
1) Final feedback from Advisor integrated
2) Proposal distributed to committee
November 24, 2002
Proposal defended!
December 15th
1) IRB forms submitted to university
January 30th 2003
1) Created dataset for my analyses (i.e., pulled out all of my
relevant variables)
2) Appropriate statistical program (e.g., Amos, LisRel) purchased
3) IRB approved
February 28th
1) Descriptive analyses complete and written up
March 28th
1) First set of model analyses complete
April 28th
1) First pass of all analyses entirely complete
2) Timeline Revised/Refined if necessary
May 30th
1) Draft of results section written
2) Results section given to Advisor for feedback
June 15th
1) Outline for discussion complete
July 1st
1) Feedback received from Advisor on results section
July15th
1) Draft of discussion complete
2) Revisions made to results
3) Revised results and draft of discussion given to Advisor again
August 1st
1) Feedback received from Advisor on discussion section
August 23rd
1) Revisions made to discussion
2) Any additional revisions made to results
3) Revised discussion sent to Advisor
September 8th
1) Feedback received from Advisor on discussion
October 8th1
1) Revisions/additions made to introduction
2) Revisions/feedback integrated into discussion
3) Entire dissertation given to Advisor for final feedback
November 1st
1) Feedback received from Advisor on entire draft
November 15th
1) Any final revisions to entire document made
2) Dissertation distributed to committee members for review before
defense meeting
December 4th, 2003
Dissertation Defended!
From
http://www.lifeessentialscoaching.com/strategies.html
|
|
|
