Dissertation Quality Essay Example for Free

Dissertation Quality Essay After perusing the reports on standards for different types of research, it appears that my particular dissertation should more or less be held to the highest possible standards, given the circumstances under which my research will be undertaken. The standards for quality that have been cited by the varying types of review boards have certain criteria that they share. Review boards vary mainly in the type of use that they make of the research that is submitted to them, and a large part of this variance is concerned with the availability of funds. Certain boards; like the National Science Board (NSB), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH); award sizable grants for particular research and therefore seem to have a higher degree of selectivity at the proposal level. In such a scenario, the greater part of the proposals submitted fail to be supported by these institutions and are (by default) considered of lower quality. Universities, on the other hand, are under much less of an obligation to fund dissertations and also have a more vested interest in improving the quality of proposals and dissertations submitted to their committees. Differences exist therefore because of the type of examining board to which research will be submitted. However, despite these differences, it has been found that the criteria for excellence that act as a benchmark for quality dissertations do possess similarities to those required by the various other types of research. Still, the methods of evaluation have also been found to emphasize certain criteria while de-emphasizing others. Though quality dissertations like mine usually end up being significantly longer, they are themselves generally structured in a manner similar to peer-reviewed journal articles. These products of research are expected to provide detailed explanation of the author’s thoughts and actions concerning the research from the moment of its conception through its implementation and analysis (NIH, 2001; NSB NSF, 1996; Straub, Ang Evaristo, 1994). Quality research (including dissertations) therefore contains focused information concerning the background to the question or problem being considered. My dissertation should also contain evidence of extensive research in the field of inquiry, usually demonstrated through a comprehensive literature review. The question of the research is also expected to be formulated in such a way as to facilitate direct empirical study, and the methods used should be presented in detail within the body of the research. Evidence of the statistical analysis of data should also be presented in elaborate form within the dissertation and the results subsequently discussed in detail. Finally, the major implications of the research should be reiterated, conclusions drawn, and recommendations given (2001; 1995; 1994). Despite the fact that the dissertation (like other forms of research) should follow this general pattern, certain value judgments concerning the quality of the product at each level must also be made. In general, the dissertations should be held to a standard dictating that the problem addressed within it be of some significance to the research field (NIH, 2001). This has been described as â€Å"an original and significant contribution† to the particular discipline, and demands that the research seek to expand or advance scientific knowledge in some definable way. The onus should be placed upon me (the presenter of the dissertation that seeks to be of true quality) to explicitly communicate how my research measures up to this standard. Through this measure my educational level will also be exposed, and further knowledge concerning my mastery of his area will also be gauged through my discussion of the literature that has been reviewed. This discussion should be measured according to the extent to which it demonstrates a high level of understanding of the material being dealt with, and such understanding is only enhanced by the recognition of gaps in research that the dissertation itself proposes to fill. Quality dissertations are also held to a high standard regarding the methodology chosen for the implementation of the study used to gain contemporary empirical data. The quality of my dissertation should therefore also be gauged according to this standard. As a researcher, I should be expected to adhere strictly to proper scientific methods, and express evidence must be given within the dissertation itself that this has been performed. Beyond this, however, most reports on research quality or eligibility make some reference to â€Å"intrinsic† or â€Å"intellectual merit† (NSB NSF, 1996; Lovitts, 2005). In fact, some review boards have given guidelines that appear Hippocratic in their nature—requiring not only that researchers practice good science and produce dissertations that add unique knowledge to the field, but also that they fulfill a pedagogical responsibility as well as contribute to the improvement of society (Comer, 2005; NSF, 1996). My dissertation must also be held to such a standard. Resources do play a big part in the ability to produce a meritorious dissertation. In fact, one particular report has mentioned a criterion that gauges the usefulness of the environment in the performance of the research associated with a dissertation (NIH, 2001). The availability of resources and technology that aid in research performance (or the availability of the funds necessary to procure these) will have a significant impact on how well my dissertation is written. Furthermore, the quality of my dissertation will also depend on the intellectual resources available to me—competent, qualified and knowledgeable professors and the access to journals and other scientific and peer-reviewed journals (Comer, 2005; Straub, Ang Evaristo, 1994). These variables take a great deal of money to fund, and their availability for use will actually depend on the researcher’s ability to attend a university that provides these resources. Some researchers have revealed a certain amount of skepticism when considering the methods employed for measuring the quality of research. These persons have indicated that the measured quality of research has the ability to change depending on the perspective from which it is scrutinized. Therefore, a dissertation which might appear â€Å"excellent† when viewed from one standpoint might be considered only â€Å"acceptable† when seen from another standpoint (Lovitts, 2005). Much of the merit granted to a dissertation (or resulting journal publication) depends on the reputation of the researcher, and this in turn can be gauged by a number of factors. Reports also suggest that the level of funding granted (or to be granted) has a bearing on the amount of scrutiny that a research product will undergo. However, it must be noted that reputation can be superficial. Substantial research might be overlooked because a rivaling product has been compiled by a researcher with a better-known name. Similarly, research might be given a high-quality label solely because it has been performed with the aid of a large grant. The reasoning behind this is that the grant would not have been awarded had the research idea not been highly original, innovative, and possessing of all the intellectual and pedagogical qualities named above. However, the point that such report-writers make is a valid one: that the quality of a dissertation should be judged not on such peripheral factors as the name of the researcher or grant amount, but on the intrinsic qualities of the actual research produced. My dissertation should be granted the same courtesy: it should be judged on the merit of its intrinsic qualities (as described in earlier paragraphs) rather than on other superficial variables. One particular report on the quality of dissertations has mentioned the label of â€Å"acceptable† being given to an otherwise high-quality dissertation because of the failure of the methods or the achievement of an unfavorable outcome. Specifically, one report has noted that â€Å"In experimental disciplines, otherwise good dissertations are considered acceptable when experiment(s) do not work out, and students get null or negative results† (Lovitts, 2005). It is therefore notably the case, sometimes, that theory and practice do not concur. In such a case, it appears that the quality of the dissertation is faulted (2005), though it is not certain why this should be definitively the case. Should theory and practice not concur in the execution of the experiments covered in my dissertation, consideration should be given to the value even of such a contradictory finding. Such a value would (and should) be emphasized within the dissertation itself. The scientific nature of research—even at the dissertation level—should admit all findings into the annals of research even (and perhaps especially) when practice contradicts theory. (This should, of course, be contingent on the proper performance of my experiment. Furthermore, it should also be considered that the ability to make theoretical ideas practical may be a limiting factor in experimentation. One example of this regards the ethical idea of informed consent, which works well in theory, but in practice sometimes harms the outcome of experiments (Bassett, Basinger, Livermore, 1992; Schrag, 1979). The quality of my dissertations should be measured according to my ability to provide creative and effective methods of dealing with any problems that arise from discrepancies between theory and methods. The considerations named above are applicable to me. Though some potential problems may no longer present a barrier to my completing a quality dissertation (as I have succeeded in procuring many of these resources) it must be noted that the standpoint from which my dissertation is viewed will likely have an effect on the perception of its quality. It is fair to base the quality of my dissertation on the efficacy and incisiveness of the research question and problem it addresses. It is also fair to judge its quality based on my competence, as will be revealed in my interaction with the literature reviewed. Furthermore, the methods I employ to implement the experiment must be sound and discussions insightful and comprehensive. However, research suggests that one should also consider the idea of bias, as a quality dissertation presented by certain researchers who (even within a university setting) may not be regarded as highly as others, might be overlooked or undervalued despite its innate value (2005). My dissertation should be treated with courtesy and valued as much on its intrinsic merit as possible.