assignments the forms are uploaded

SCIENTIFIC MERIT REVIEW FORM

SCIENTIFIC MERIT REVIEW FORM

School of Public Service Leadership

Scientific Merit Process

Dissertation researchers will use this form to go through the process of scientific merit review (SMR). The goals of this process are to:

(1) Facilitate the planning of the details of your dissertation research project.

(2) Allow for scientific merit review.

(3) Facilitate your progress through the dissertation.

This is not an addition to your dissertation but rather a step to assist you in obtaining mentor, committee, school, and IRB approval more efficiently. You must obtain scientific merit approval before writing your full dissertation proposal. Scientific merit approval is part of Dissertation Milestone 3, Mentor Approval.

Scientific Merit Criteria

The following criteria will be used to establish scientific merit. The purpose of the review will determine if the study:

· Advances the scientific knowledge base.

· Makes a contribution to research theory.  

· Meets certain “Hallmarks” of good research methodology.

Scientific Merit Approval**

Your SMR completed form will be approved, not approved, or deferred for major or minor revisions. The Scientific Merit Reviewer will use a check list to determine if the study meets the criteria for scientific merit and the reviewer will provide specific feedback designed to identify any issues that need to be resolved related to the scientific merit or the proposed methodology for the SMR form to be approved. You will have up to three opportunities to submit this form for SMR approval. Scientific Merit approval does not mean you will obtain IRB approval. The IRB review will focus on ethical issues.

** Obtaining Scientific Merit approval does not guarantee you will obtain IRB approval. A detailed ethical review will be conducted during the process of IRB approval.

Recommendations for How to Use This Form

This SMR form is intended to help you plan the details of your dissertation. It provides a space for you and your mentor to work out all the details of your design. Then it allows you to submit your design plan for Scientific Merit Review. Once you have obtained Scientific Merit approval, you should be able to easily expand on the information you have submitted here and write the dissertation proposal because the methodology section follows the Dissertation Chapter 3 outline. It is recommended that you use this form in a step-by-step way to help you plan your design. Expect that you will go through several revisions before your mentor approves this form.

When you are completely done with your form and it has Mentor approval, your Mentor will submit it to your Scientific Merit Reviewer for approval.

Dos and Don’ts

· Do prepare your answers in a separate Word document, as editing and revising will be easier.

· Set font formatting to Times New Roman, 11 point, regular style font or Arial, 10 point, regular style font. Use the “Format” menu.

· Do set paragraph indentation (“Format” menu) for no indentation, no spacing.

· Do copy-paste items into the right-hand fields when they are ready.

· Do not delete the descriptions in the left column!

· Do not lock the form. That will stop you from editing and revising within the form.

· Do complete the “Learner and Program Information” (Section 1).

· Do not skip items or sections. If an item does not apply to your study, type “NA” in its field; i.e., leave no blank spaces in the form.

· Do read the item descriptions and their respective Instructions carefully. Items request very specific information. Be sure you understand what is asked (Good practice for your IRB application!).

· Do use primary sources to the greatest extent possible as references. Textbooks (Patton, Leedy and Ormrod, et cetera) are not acceptable as the only references supporting methodological and design choices. Use them to track down the primary sources.

· Do submit a revised SMR form if, after approval, you change your design elements. It may not need a second review, but the mentor should send any revisions to the Scientific Merit Reviewer before your IRB is submitted.

Section 1. Learner and Program Information (to be completed by learner)
Learner Name		Learner Email
Mentor Name		Mentor Email
Specialization (Delete all specializations except for your own)	Area of Specialization Program Chair · General Human Services Dr. Charles Lorbeer · Health Care Administration Dr. Lonnie Wederski · Management of Nonprofits Dr. Yvonne Kochanowski · Social and Community Services Dr. Charles Lorbeer · Criminal Justice Dr. Steven Barthelmeus · Emergency Management Dr. Michael Kemp · Public Safety Leadership Dr. Steven Barthelmeus	Program Chair Email

Dissertation Title

Section 2. Research Problem & Contributions to Research Theory
2.1 Research Problem Describe the scientific problem. This paragraph goes beyond the social problem. E.g. We know X from the literature, we also know Y, but we don’t know Z and that is why this study’s research question is important.
2.2 Advancing the Scientific Knowledge Base Specifically describe how this research will advance scientific knowledge in your specialization area by answering all of these 3 questions using bullet points and in-text citations.	1. Does the study address something that is not known or has not been studied before—How is this study new or different from other studies? 2. If your research questions are studied, how could your findings impact your field of interest—“So What?” 3. What possible practical implications do you predict the results of your research will have? For instance, what will be the impact of these results on your sample, your site location, or your workplace—“Who Cares?”
2.3 Theoretical Foundation List the major theory or theories that serve as the backbone of the study. List each theory, briefly describe it, and list a reference for each immediately below the theory.
2.4 Contribution to Research Theory Explain how your study answers one of these 4 questions.	Provide a detailed explanation for at least one of the following questions. · In what ways does the research generate a new theory? · In what ways does the research refine or add to an existing theory? · In what ways does the research test to confirm or refute theory? · In what ways does the research expand theory by telling us something new about application or processes?
2.5 Research Questions List the research questions. The questions should align with the research problem. Be very specific here. PSL dissertations typically have between 2-6 research questions.

Section 3. Methodology, Sampling, Ethics
3.1 Identify the variables (quantitative) or the concepts (qualitative) How do the variables or concepts align with the theories?	Variables Measured: Concepts Measured:
3.2 General Methodology Choose the methodology you believe is most appropriate for this study.	Indicate methodology by checking it below. ____ Quantitative ____ Qualitative ____ Mixed Method
3.3 Methodological Approach Choose the specific approach you believe is appropriate for this study. If a mixed methods design, choose one approach in each category.	Qualitative Approaches : (Case Study; Ethnography; Grounded Theory; Phenomenology) Chosen Approach: Quantitative Approaches: (Experiment, Quasi Experiment, Correlation) Chosen Approach:
3.4 Rationale for Methodology Write a 1-2 sentence rationale describing how your design is best suited to answering your research questions.
3.5 Assumptions Identify the key (A) theoretical, (B) topical, and (C) methodological assumptions of the study; provide citations to support their adoption.
3.6 Limitations Evaluate the weaknesses of your study at this time. Indicate areas to be improved before start of the study and areas that cannot be improved. Give reasons for not redesigning to address any of the limitations identified.
3.7 Measures/Instruments List and describe each data collection instrument or measurement tool you will use. This includes questionnaires, formal interview protocols, forms, etc. Include (A) alignment with variable or concept (E.g., Qualitative—interview question 3 will elicit information about stress when providing care for elderly who have downs syndrome, OR Quantitative—questions 4-10 on the XX survey are summed to create a measure of happiness) (B) data type(s) generated by each measure (Qualitative—coded themes, lived experiences or Quantitative—nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio level data),, and (C) available psychometric information (Qualitative—rich, thick descriptions, OR Quantitative—validity & reliability coefficients). Attach a copy of each instrument you plan to use as an appendix to your SMR.
3.8 If modifying an instrument: Describe any pilot test or field test that may be required for any instruments. Field tests must be done (A) for new instruments or questions developed by the learner, and (B) with expert panelists. Field tests require no IRB review required. A pilot test requires IRB review.
3.9 Population and Sampling Plan Describe the population of people OR data (e.g. newspaper articles, schools, neighborhoods) in which your study is interested. Briefly describe the characteristics of this sample, including (A) demographics, (B) inclusion criteria if any; (C) exclusion criteria if any. Describe how you plan to select the sample. Include the steps you will take to recruit participants. Provide enough detail so that someone else would be able to follow this recipe to conduct the study. Provide rationale for your decisions.
3.10 Sample Size What is the expected sample size needed? How do you know? Provide citations (primary sources) to support the sample size decision, (e.g., a power analysis, articles indicating effect size of scales, or citations justifying your qualitative sample size).
3.11 Expected Site Describe the site(s) or source from which you expect to draw your sample.
3.12 Site Permission Who is authorized to provide permission to use this site or source? Does the site have an IRB? What do you need to do to obtain permission to access the population or data source?
3.13 Participant Contact How will potential participants first be contacted? How will participants be contacted following the study?
3.14 Data Collection Describe the exact procedure that will be used to carry out the study. This is a step-by-step description of exactly how the research will be conducted. This should read like a recipe for conducting your study. Be sure to include all the necessary details so that someone else should be able to follow this and be able to replicate the study.
3.15 Data Analysis Describe analysis procedures for each distinct data type: specific statistical analysis for quantitative studies; audiotapes, transcripts, video tape, field notes, photos, etc. for qualitative studies; or describe a combination of procedures for a mixed methods design. Ensure that the analysis is consistent with your chosen methodological approach. Describe all methods and procedures for data analysis including: (a) types of data to be analyzed, (b) organizing raw data, (c) managing and processing data, (d) preparation of data for analysis, and (e) storage and protection of data. For each research question or sub-question, detail the actual data analyses to be conducted to answer each specific question or how you plan to test each hypothesis.
3.16 Ethical Considerations. Describe any ethical considerations given the sample population and/or topic. Please explain as fully as possible. E.g., How do you plan to protect human participants while identifying the sample, while collecting the data, while analyzing the data, after data are collected, when you store your data?
3.17 Risk Assessment. Is your study more than minimal risk? Does the study examine a vulnerable population? What special steps will you take to protect your participants? Refer to your CITI course for more information about minimal risk. Please explain.	No: Yes:

Scientific Merit Status

Directions for Reviewers

The reviewer determines if the Scientific Merit Review (SMR) form is approved, disapproved or deferred for major or minor revisions. An SMR form is approved if the reviewer has been able to answer “MET EXPECTATIONS” to all of the evaluation questions. A researcher has 3 opportunities to pass scientific merit review.

If any of the items have been checked as “BELOW EXPECTATIONS,” then the reviewer is asked to comment specifically and provide recommendations. Most of the time recommendations will lead to the reviewer requesting major or minor revisions. Minor revisions are things like needing to include more detail. Major revisions are issues where there are major design flaws, potential ethical concerns or inconsistency in terms of the research questions, the design, and the proposed data analysis. Disapproval occurs if the researcher fails to pass the SMR review on the third attempt. Disapproval could also occur earlier in the process if it is clear that the study 1.) does not have any potential for scientific merit or 2.) the study has major ethical or methodological flaws that can’t be corrected.

Please indicate your decision for this review in the correct place (First Review, Second Review, etc) and insert your electronic signature and the date below. If the SMR has a Final Status of “Approved” or “Disapproved”, please be sure to indicate this Final Scientific Merit Review status below as well.

Scientific Reviewer Evaluation

	Criteria	Met Expectations	Below Expectations	Reviewer Comments
1	Did the Specialization Chair approve the dissertation title, topic, and problem as appropriate for the specialization area? (2.1)
2	Will the study advance scientific knowledge in the field by meeting one of these four criteria? (2.2) 1. Does the study address something that is not known or has not been studied before? 2. Is this study new or different from other studies in some way? 3. Does the study extend prior research on the topic in some way? 4. Does the study fill a gap in the existing literature?
3	Does the research make a contribution to research theory in one of these ways? (2.3, 2.4) 1. Does the research generate a new theory? 2. Does the research refine or add to a new theory? 3. Does the research test to confirm or refute theory? 4. Does the research expand theory by telling us something new about application or processes?
4	Do the research questions address the research problem? (2.5)
5	Does the basic methodology and rationale proposed seem appropriate to answer the research questions? (3.2, 3.4)
6	Is the research design clearly and accurately described? Can the design answer the research questions with the proposed sample, design, and analysis? (3.5, 3.6, 3.7)
7	Are any concerns about using the particular population, sample, site or how participants will be contacted, sufficiently addressed by the methodology? (3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13)
8	Is participant involvement, selection, and recruitment fully described and appropriate for the study? (3.13)
9	Are all data collection instruments, measures, scales, interview questions or observations , appropriate for this study? Have field tests (if necessary) been described? (3.1, 3.8)
11	Does the researcher describe in detail the procedure to be followed in a step-by-step way so that it is completely clear how the research will be conducted? (3.14)
12	Are the proposed data analyses appropriate? Is there alignment between the research questions, proposed methodology, types of data to be collected and proposed data analysis? Is the language used to describe the type of design and data analysis plans consistent throughout? (3.15)
13	Have any potentially serious ethical concerns been considered and sufficiently addressed? (3.16)
14	Have risks been adequately identified? (3.17)

Scientific Review Information (to be completed by Reviewer only)
Reviewer Name:
	Date	Decision
First Review	|_| Date Approved ____________________ |_| Date Deferred _____________________	Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form) |_| Minor Revisions |_| Major Revisions
Second Review (if needed)	|_| Date Approved ____________________ |_| Date Deferred _____________________	Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form) |_| Minor Revisions |_| Major Revisions
Third Review (if needed)	|_| Date Approved ____________________ |_| Date Deferred _____________________	Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form) |_| Minor Revisions |_| Major Revisions
Sent to Research Chair for Review and Consultation (if needed)	Date:	Research Chair Process Review Outcome (see attachments if needed)
Conference Call	|_| Date Approved ____________________ |_| Date Deferred _____________________	Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form): |_| Minor Revisions |_| Major Revisions
FINAL SCIENTIFIC MERIT STATUS	|_| Approved	Date Approved:_____________________________

Appendix A

Sections of the Dissertation

(& Corresponding Sections of the SMR Form)

Elements from the Dissertation Guides Workbook prepared by

Drs. Curtis Brant, Bruce Fischer, Malcolm Gray, Randy Johnson , Kim Kostere, Tony Levinskas, Bill Percy, and Nancy Piotrowski

Dissertation Chapter One

A. Background of the Problem (Introduction) (2.1)

Identifies the wider issues underlying the research problem and question. Essentially a brief synopsis of the literature review (fully developed in Chapter Two of the dissertation) about the problem itself and the theoretical framework the researcher has chosen to evaluate the problem and the eventual data obtained about it.

B. Statement of the Problem (2.1)

Clearly states the research problem–the form of the problem that is the specific object of investigation in this study. The research problem is not the general social or psychological problem described in the Background section (which may require many different components for solution), but a specific problem that a research project is required to solve.

C. Purpose of the Study (2.2, 2.4)

The core purpose of the study is to answer the research question, whose purpose is to solve the research problem. The wider social or psychological problem (e.g., stopping or treating childhood abuse or developing effective management techniques for organizations) cannot be solved by a single research project. The research project, however, should be, and that is the core purpose of the study. Contributing knowledge toward a solution of the wider problem can be a second purpose.

D. Significance of the Study (2.2, 2.4)

Significance of the research is related both to what is known in the literature and the value of the training in research the learner is receiving as a result of completing the study. This section presents the argument that fulfilling the purpose of the study is important to the field of pubic service leadership, to some specialization within public service leadership, to a community of persons interested in the problem, or to researchers interested in the problem.

E. Research Design (3.2)

Describes the general blueprint for the study itself—how its elements (overall methodology, sample selection and assignment, data collection methods and procedures, data analysis methods, data presentation methods) are aligned and coordinated in order to maximize cogency and to reduce threats to validity or credibility.

F. Research Question and Hypotheses (2.5)

States exactly the question that the study will answer, including any sub-questions. The research question must include the variables or phenomena being investigated and their relationship (if any is sought). Hypotheses are predictive statements of the expected answers to the research sub-questions; qualitative projects do not use hypotheses.

This meets criteria for a respectable research question:

1. It is a question.

2. It can be answered.

3. Because it is closely linked to a viable research problem (which in turn is linked to a wider problem which is important to some stakeholders), it has significance and has not already been answered.

4. It clearly identifies the variables and the relationships that will be investigated.

5. The question, if reduced to its keywords (management, management-by-objective, human potentials, worker morale, etc.), will give readers a good idea of what the study investigates and will bring up the study when others search published dissertations.

G. Assumptions and Limitations (3.5, 3.6)

States the assumptions (constructs being taken as given, usually four kinds: general methodological assumptions, theoretical assumptions, topic-specific assumptions, and assumptions about instruments or methods) being accepted for the study and the limitations (things the study does not do either intentionally or because of inherent design limitations).

H. Definitions of Terms (3.7)

Defines all constructs investigated in the study along with characteristics of the sample and any other characteristics or variables which are of importance in the research question. In quantitative projects, define the construct variables operationally. In qualitative projects, all constructs and characteristics need to be clearly and fully described in sufficient detail that readers can observe them in appropriate contexts.

I. Expected Findings (3.15)

States the findings expected from the data analysis from a conceptual standpoint, showing how the findings are expected to answer the research question in terms of the theoretical framework for the study.

Dissertation Chapter Two

A. The Introduction to the Literature Review

The introduction to the literature review states the overall topic of the dissertation and provides an orienting paragraph or passage so the reader knows what the literature review will address. Describe how the chapter will be organized (what are the main points and in what order do they appear?). Describe (briefly) how the literature was surveyed, providing enough information about search criteria (keywords used, databases searched, libraries accessed and journals investigated, for example) that the reader can evaluate the thoroughness of the review.

B. Theoretical Orientation for the Study (2.3)

In this section of the literature review, cite the major references to support your theoretical orientation and briefly describe the orientation. Essentially, the "theoretical orientation" or framework is one's "point of view" from which one writes the paper or conducts the dissertation. When you intend to use more than one theoretical framework, you need to synthesize and integrate the different theories carefully.

C. Review of Research Literature and Methodological Literature Specific to the Topic or Research Question (2.2, 2.3, 2.4)

This section has two sub-sections: Review of research on the topic and Review of methodological literature. How this is organized is important. It can be organized by variables, by factors or constructs to be addressed, by elements of the theoretical framework, by or elements of the research design.

D. Synthesis of Research Findings

This section will summarize the main points of Chapter Two, showing both the strengths and the weaknesses in your theoretical orientation and your project's relationship with the previous research on the topic, both in content (research findings) and methods (methodology).

E. Critique of previous research (2.2, 2.4)

In this section examine the quality of the research reviewed. What are the methodological strengths and limitations of the works you reviewed? How do those weaknesses, in particular, affect your own argument? Consider things such a rigor of designs, sampling errors, size of samples, quality or research instruments, appropriateness of statistical procedures, and any other issues related to the quality of research. At the end of this section there should be a strong case for why the study will be a step forward in terms of research rigor.

F. Summary

This should not be more than a page, and in general will summarize the conclusions you have drawn from the previous literature on your topic or methodology which support your own project. This is of great importance in the dissertation, where this section sums up Chapter Two and provides a transition into Chapter Three.

Dissertation Chapter Three

A. Purposes of the Study (2.1)

This section repeats the information given in the opening sections of Chapter One: the research problem, any background relevant to the methods, the research questions and hypotheses (if any) which are designed to gather information needed to solve the problem, and what the study is meant to accomplish, that is, its purpose. The objective is to reorient the readers so that the methods to be described here will make sense.

B. Research Design (3.2, 3.3, 3.4)

Describes the research design with emphasis on methods and procedures. Critical elements include methodology, sample type, data collection methods and frequency, and data analysis type(s). Emphasis should be placed on description of validity threats (credibility issues in qualitative designs) and how the design minimizes or eliminates them. Like the previous section, you already outlined this in Chapter One from a conceptual standpoint. Here you can repeat (rewritten, as above) much of that material for the readers’ convenience, adding in greater clarity and detail, with your focus being a concrete description of your design. Again, the aim is to create a step-by-step recipe to support possible replication in the future.

C. Target Population and Participant Selection (3.9, 3.11, 3.12)

Describes the characteristics of the larger population from which the sample (study participants) will be drawn. Include in this section, after the characteristics, a discussion of sample size, including all steps taken to determine and justify sample size (e.g., power analysis). In this section, you will first describe the characteristics of the population. Next, describe the sample, consistently with the description of the population. Describe the size of your sample next.

D. Sampling Procedures (3.9, 3.10, 3.13)

Once you have described how you determined the sample size, describe how you plan to select the sample. Include the steps taken for recruitment of participants. Each procedure—identifying potential participants, contacting that pool, recruiting or inviting their participation, and organizing your sample—requires its own procedural description (a recipe clear enough that others can repeat your work).

E. Instruments (3.7)

Describe in detail all data collection instruments and measures (tests, questionnaires, interview protocols, and so forth). This section should include a description of each instrument or measure, its normative data, validity and reliability statistics, results of field tests conducted to determine validity, reliability, or appropriateness of the instrument.

F. Data Collection Procedures (3.14)

The procedures section describes the procedures that will be used to carry out all the major methods of the study. As before, the terms “methods” and “procedures” mean different things. “Methods” is a general term describing what you will do to accomplish the task at hand. “Procedures,” on the other hand, are step-by-step descriptions of how the methods will be carried out.

The Procedures section should contain at least the following subsections:

a) Methods and procedures for sample recruitment, sample selection, and assignment to groups (if relevant);

b) Methods and procedures for obtaining informed consent and for protecting the rights and well-being of the participants;

c) Methods and procedures adopted to maintain data securely, including the length of time data will be kept and how they will be destroyed;

d) Methods and procedures for data collection, including how data will be organized and prepared for analysis;

e) Methods and procedures for data analysis; and

f) Methods and procedures for presentation of the data, findings, and results.

G. Proposed Data Analyses (3.15)

Describe carefully the research question and sub-questions, followed by the null and alternate or research hypotheses (in quantitative studies) that predict the answer to each. Whereas Chapter One was conceptual, this section should focus on the empirical and statistical analysis. Describes all methods and all procedures for data analysis including: (a) types of data to be analyzed (see previous sections), (b) organizing raw data, (c) managing and processing data, (d) preparation of data for analysis, (e) actual analyses to be carried out, (f) storage and protection of data. Procedures must be detailed and carefully described. General statements should be avoided. Remember to state not only what statistics will be used, but also to select the level of significance for all significance tests.

H. Expected Findings

In quantitative studies, describe each outcome of the hypotheses: Was the null accepted or rejected? What correlations were found and at what significance level? In qualitative studies, discuss biases in the researcher that have been identified and how they will be accounted for. The focus in Chapter Three should be on the actual expected results of the analysis (particularly in quantitative studies).

I. Ethical Considerations (3.16, 3.17)

This section provides a discussion of ethical issues related to the study and the population of interest. Anonymity, confidentiality, privacy, lack of coercion, and informed consent are all issues that should be addressed in this section.

Revised 7-28-11 -9-