week 5 responds
arnita
week5responds.docx
Discussion Assignment Week 5: The Dissertation: The Big Picture
Roberts (2010) also delineated that “A doctoral dissertation is a formal document that demonstrates your ability to conduct research that makes an original contribution to theory or practice” (p. 18). The four doctoral dissertations from Dunlow, (2014), Erdvig, (2016), Grusendorf, (2016) and Kiedis, (2009) exemplified this explanation. These dissertations sought to answer unanswered questions that research until that point had not. Embarking on their own journeys, the four researchers committed to making substantial contributions to their chosen areas of concern.
Regarding their dissertation outlines, the researchers utilized varying formats and the dissertation lengths' ranged from 214 to 324 total pages. The front matter flow varied in all the dissertations yet largely contained the same elements except for Kiedis (2009); the abstract was toward the end of his work (p. 302). Likewise, organizationally, although, the titles of the chapters differed in some cases, each dissertation was comprised of the same core chapters in corresponding order.
The primary difference among the dissertations was their approach. For example, “While [Dunlow’s (2014)] study did use both qualitative and quantitative measures, the analysis focused on quantitative data” (p. 77)…[gathered primarily from] “two quantitative surveys” (p. 160). Erdvig’s (2016) “study was conducted utilizing a qualitative, systematic grounded theory design” (p. 70). Then again, Grusendorf, (2016) “utilized a [quantitative] descriptive survey method in order to make… determinations” (p. 10) concerning specified correlational relationships. Finally, a “sequential mixed methods design [was employed by Kiedis (2009)] incorporating both qualitative and quantitative research methods” (p. 107).
From the review, two researchers applied quantitative methods principally towards addressing their research problem. One other leveraged mixed-methods and one mainly applied qualitative means that were quantitatively informed. In viewing the purpose statements, the three dissertations employing quantitative research methods expressly sought to explore (Dunlow, 2014), understand (Erdvig, 2016) and determine (Kiedis, 2009) relationships and connections between certain characteristics. The purpose of Grusendorf’s (2016) qualitative “grounded theory study, however, was to develop a model” (p. 22). The research questions subsequently reflected the dissertation’s purpose statement. All contained four to six research questions. The qualitatively based dissertation asked “how’ questions, (one core question and three sub-questions) whereas the other three asked “what” questions to capture existence of dynamic relationships.
In comparing the outline and structure of these four varying dissertation types with the CLED program’s dissertation requirements, these perspectives emerged. The front matter contained the same elements albeit in varying order and content. The order of the back matter also differed amongst the examples. Moreover, the chapter orders were indistinguishable although the chapter names were modified as well as some of the content. Additionally, a basic review of the CLED program’s qualitative and quantitative dissertation outlines showed parallel in the chapter titles and content. The substantial difference was in chapter three in the areas of participant identification and information analysis. With qualitative research, the researcher is inherently part of the research environment and as such their role and the setting must be clearly articulated. Further, trustworthiness and the means by which the research is evaluated are also called out in the outline template (p. 27): Credibility; Dependability; Confirmability; Transferability.
This exploration was edifying and educational. While the dissertation journey is certainly formidable, the roadmap provided in the CLED program handbook and demonstrated in the four dissertations, helps chart the course. 1 Corinthians 14:40’s encouragement regarding worship could be applied here as well, “But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (New International Version, 1982). This week’s review increased familiarity with the dissertation structure and afforded insight into the varying research methods and associated assessment mechanics. Thanks, God bless!
References
Dunlow, J. (2014). The relationship between mentoring and spiritual formation among
nontraditional theological seminary students (Order No. 3581136). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Social Science Premium Collection. (1547350694). http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fdissertations-theses%2Frelationship-between-mentoring-spiritual%2Fdocview%2F1547350694%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D12085
Erdvig, R. C. S. (2016). A model for Biblical worldview development in Evangelical Christian
emerging adults (Order No. 10243195). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Liberty University; ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Social Science Premium Collection. (1861207897). http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fdissertations-theses%2Fmodel-biblical-worldview-development-evangelical%2Fdocview%2F1861207897%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D12085
Grusendorf, S. A. (2016). A Correlational Study of the Communication Styles and Use of Power
among Lead Pastors (Order No. 10786916). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2033020266). http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fdissertations-theses%2Fcorrelational-study-communication-styles-use%2Fdocview%2F2033020266%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D12085
Kiedis, T. L. (2009). A comparative analysis of leadership development models in post -
baccalaureate theological education (Order No. 3401812). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Social Science Premium Collection. (205394512). http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fdissertations-theses%2Fcomparative-analysis-leadership-development%2Fdocview%2F205394512%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D12085
Liberty University John W. Rawlings School of Divinity (2020). Doctor of Education in Christian
Leadership (CLED) Program Handbook. https://www.dropbox.com/s/rhgmsczensr082x/EDD%20Research%20Doctoral%20Handbook%20-%20CURRENT%20VERSION.pdf?dl=0
New International Version Bible. (2011). New International Version Bible Online.
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/
Roberts, C. M. (2010). What exactly is a dissertation?. In The dissertation journey: A practical
and comprehensive guide to planning, writing, and defending your dissertation (pp. 18-30). Corwin Press, https://www-doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4135/9781452219219.n2
This week’s tread allowed reviewing four dissertations. In the summary of the assignment, it states, “dissertations typically follow common designs and are almost template-like their structure. However, when skimming the four dissertations assigned it was clear that there were some noticeable differences between the researchers. Before discussing the differences, there were a few commonalities. All four researchers, J. Dunlow, R. Erdvig, T. L. Kiedis, and S. A. Grusendorf included a table of contents, a list of tables, a list of abbreviations, and five chapters. Three of the researchers had an abstract, Kiedis, did not. Both Erdvig and Grusendorf included a list of figures and Kiedis was the only researcher who included a preface.
The outlines were slightly different as it relates to the five topics. Both Dunlow and Erdvig chapter one was titled, “Introduction”. Keidis’ and Grusendorf’s first chapter was titled, “Research Concern”. For chapter two Kiedis and Grusendorf titled it, “Precedent Literature”, while Dunlow listed, “Theological and Literature Review” and Erdvig titled it, “Literature Review”. All four researchers had methods as or within their title for chapter three. Three of the researchers indicated chapter four was their “Analysis of Findings”. However, Erdvig titled his chapter, “Findings and Discussion”. For the last chapter, both Dunlow and Erdvig titled it “Conclusions and Recommendations, while Kiedis and Grusendorf simply used, “Conclusions” as the title. It was also noted that while all four had appendices and references they were not consistent with the order.
Researchers Dunlow and Grusendorf wrote a quantitative dissertation, Erdvig wrote a qualitative dissertation and Kiedis wrote submitted both a quantitative and qualitative dissertation. Regarding the purpose statement, it was noted that Dunlow, Kiedis, and Grusendorf used one sentence. While Erdvig purpose statement presented more, and he also used a grounded theory study. For the other three researchers, their study was explored relations between two subjects or correlation between two.
For the research questions, Erdvig who submitted a qualitative dissertation had three questions that included an explanation. The other three researchers averaged five research questions.
By reviewing the four dissertations it is clear that structure and designs may not appear the same. Based on the type of dissertation some information you will find in a qualitative that you would not in a quantitative dissertation. For instance, Erdvig included a description of participants where the others used multiple tables to display their focused groups.
In comparison to pages 24-27 of the Doctor of Education in Christian Leadership Program Handbook, the order of chapters and information for quantitative and qualitative were different, chapter titles are different, some information in a qualitative dissertation was missing from Erdvig’s dissertation and based on the review it appears that Grusendorf was the only researcher whose structure mirrored the Christian Leadership Program Handbook.
