Dissertation Proposal Chapters 1-3
Sylvester Antley Clark
Letter of Intent
The University of Arizona Global Campus
Reference Manuscriipt Number – UoRDS-D-23-00029
Dear Sylvester Antley Clark,
The review of your Letter of Intent has been completed and it was approved with changes. The feedback is available and included below.
Please contact your Chair for next steps.
Reviewer’s Responses to Questions
Have you reviewed this submission and approve it for methodological review?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Criteria – Identified a general problem in the discipline that supports the need to conduct the proposed research and described a specific research problem that the research will address, backed with recent sources. Briefly explained how the results of the study could be used to address the specific research problem.
Reviewer #2: ***Please forward this review to your chair as they are not cc’d on the auto-generated email. ***
In the problem statement, when justifying your dissertation research, the research you are citing should be within the last five years (update the 2007 and 2013 references).
Otherwise, general area is acceptable. You might find this podcast useful in terms of finding participants for your research: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1547113/9888401
Purpose of the Study:
Criteria – Stated a clear purpose. Identified the research method, design, population, and geographic location.
Reviewer #2: The purpose statement in your proposal should be one clear and concise paragraph. Here you have included content that belongs in chapter 3. Be sure you are following the Dissertation Handbook to a “T” when you write your proposal. Proposals that do not follow the outline set forth in the Handbook are returned for revision (be sure you are following the checklist in Appendix B meticulously). Being mindful of this will increase the odds of your proposal being accepted on the first submission.
Note: I noticed you were using the old LOI template. Please be sure you are using the correct Dissertation Handbook.
Importance of the Study:
Criteria – Described the importance of the proposed research, including how the study represents a unique approach to the problem, how the results may contribute to theory and /or practice in the field, and the implications of the research. Identified any knowledge gaps to be addressed by the proposed research.
Reviewer #2: Acceptable.
Criteria – Provided brief overview of the research methodology: research method and research design, population and sample, instrumentation, and data collection and analysis approaches.
Reviewer #2: If you are going to be running focus groups of different organizations, I suggest you do this over zoom (and drop the reference to social distancing). Emails would not be appropriate and I don’t see how you could successfully run a focus group over the phone? These details need to be worked out in your proposal.
Be very clear, in your proposal if you are interviewing people from organizations who have done the transition successfully AND those who have not (and comparing)? Do you actually have a multiple case study? This is unclear in the LOI and your RQs will need some revision based on who, exactly, you are interviewing (see below).
Also, do not name a specific organization in your manuscriipt.
Research Questions/ Hypotheses:
Criteria – Presented specific research questions to be addressed, consistent with the proposed research method and design. If hypotheses are applicable, the stated hypotheses are clear and testable.
Reviewer #2: Based on the purpose, you are digging deep into successes and failures, which would suggest a multiple case study? Organizations that did this successfully AND those that had experiences of failures? If yes, then your RQs might be something like:
RQ1: Among organizations who successfully implemented…..what factors led to success?
RQ2: Among organizations who experienced difficulties in implementing….what factors created barriers to success?
RQ3: What would be best practices for the implementation of E-HR….
As written, I do not understand RQ2 in the LOI?
Criteria – Research problem is clearly articulated and aligns with the research purpose and method overview. If hypotheses are included, they align with the research questions. Hypotheses are testable.
Reviewer #2: Not met, but if you attend to the feedback above in your proposal and listen to this podcast before you write chapter one, gaining alignment should not be difficult: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1547113/7455607
Criteria – Written in the future tense. Minimal writing, grammar, and punctuation errors; in-text citations and references correspond to APA 6th edition.
Reviewer #2: Per APA – spell out acronyms the first time used – spell out in title and first time used in text.
Please ensure proposal is in APA 7 (proper indenting and level headings; citing references – Dahlbom et al., 2020; use of parentheses, etc.). Unlike LOIs, proposals not in APA 7 are not accepted.
Please select one.
Reviewer #2: Approved with Changes
In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the following URL: https://www.editorialmanager.com/uords/login.asp?a=r). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.
Dissertation Proposal Chapters 1-3