Dissertation Resource Manual

Guide for CSU/UCI Joint Ed.D. Students and Faculty

Issued March 2008

Table of Contents
Useful On-line Resources Access to Password-protected Sites

Dissertation Timelines

Proposed Dissertation Schedule for Cohort IV Graduate Student Deadlines: 2008-2009 Campus Graduation Dates: 2008

Procedures
Overview

Resources

Books for Dissertation Preparation Dear Abby for Doctoral Students Locating Dissertations in the UC Irvine Library Qualitative Research Resources (Lee)

Articles

Dissertation Notes: What is a Dissertation? Some Basic Expectations Dissertation Craftsmanship (Kerchner) Finishing the Dissertation (Miller) Common Writing Problems

Candidacy

Preparation for Advancement to Candidacy Dissertation Defense Timeline: Planning Document for Student Use Candidacy Committee Request Form Candidacy Examination: General Procedures Dissertation Proposal Outline (Warschauer)

(Candidacy, continued) Helpful Suggestions Candidacy Examination Announcement Ph.D. (Ed.D.) Form I UC Irvine Graduate Studies Advancement to Candidacy Confirmation Letter 2008 IRB Requirements Human Subject Research: Institutional Review Board Approval Procedure Confirmation of Collaborative Agreement Between UCI and CSU Faculty Recommendations for Preparing and Submitting IRB Application

Final Dissertation Defense

General Guidelines UCI Langson Library Preparation Information Session Announcement Library Archive Notice Ph.D. (Ed.D.) Form II Dissertation-Thesis Approval Form Diploma & Commencement Form Request for Letter of Degree Certification 2008 UC Irvine Commencement Release Form CSU Campus Dissertation Requirements Final Steps

____________________

Archives (for FAQs and Thesis and Dissertation Manual) Academic Senate Regulations

http://www.lib.uci.edu/libraries/collections/special/thesis/tdmanual.html

http://www.senate.uci.edu/senateweb/9_IrvineManual/IDManual.index.html Senate Regulation 915: Advancement to Candidacy Senate Regulation 918: Candidacy Committee Senate Regulation 920: Doctoral Committee
http://www.senate.uci.edu/senateweb/9_IrvineManual/2ASMRegulations/R4PhDReq/Reg915.html http://www.senate.uci.edu/senateweb/9_IrvineManual/2ASMRegulations/R4PhDReq/Reg918.html http://www.senate.uci.edu/senateweb/9_IrvineManual/2ASMRegulations/R4PhDReq/Reg920.html http://www.senate.uci.edu/senateweb/9_IrvineManual/2ASMRegulations/R4PhDReq/Reg925.html

Senate Regulation 925: Dissertation Approval

Useful Online Resources: UC Irvine

Library Special Collections and Archives: Thesis & Dissertation Manual http://www.libraries.uci.edu/libraries/collections/special/thesis/td65.html Forms: Dissertation-Thesis Approval Form www.rgs.uci.edu/grad/students/forms/dis-thesis.pdf UC Irvine Graduate Advisors Handbook www.rgs.uci.edu/grad/staff/grad_hdbk.pdf Student Forms http://www.rgs.uci.edu/grad/students/forms.htm CSU/UCI Ed.D. Program Information http://www.gse.uci.edu/csu-uci-edd UC Irvine Filing Deadlines http://www.rgs.uci.edu/grad/students/filing_deadline.htm UC Irvine Commencement Release Form http://www.rgs.uci.edu/grad/students/Commencement_Release_Fall_2008.pdf UCI Commencement Information http://www.commencement.uci.edu/

2008 Dissertation Timelines

Proposed Schedule for Cohort IV Dissertation Process for 2008-2009 CSU/UCI Joint Ed.D. Student Copy
Target Date Year Activity Location

August 30 September September December Winter Quarter

2007 2007 2007

2008

Winter/Spring Quarter

2008

Winter/Spring Quarter

2008

Winter/Spring Quarter Spring Quarter

2008 2008

Spring Quarter

2008

Students submit Qualifying Paper Students receive score on Qualifying Paper and meet with CSU Co-director CSU Co-directors appoint Advisor for each student with the intention that the Advisor will chair the students Candidacy and Dissertation committees. A current list of Core and Supporting Faculty is reviewed by each CSU campus in accordance with the proposed MOU/Bylaws and submitted to the Program Coordinator at UCI, along with a current CV for each new faculty member on the list. Student, Advisor, and Co-director complete Candidacy Committee Request Form identifying the CSU Chair, second CSU reader, and any preferences by the student regarding UCI faculty members for the Candidacy Committee. An outside member also may be requested at this time. The Candidacy Committee Form must include a one-page summary of the students dissertation focus. The completed form is forwarded to the Program Coordinator at UCI. UCI appoints the UCI members of the Candidacy Committee, taking into account the students' research interests and, insofar as possible, any UCI faculty preferences expressed by the students. Proposed Candidacy Committee membership is reported to the CSU Co-director. Candidacy Committee confirmed by CSU Codirector. Candidacy/Dissertation Information Session is held for all Cohort III students, Co-Directors, and all newly-appointed Candidacy Committee members from CSU and UCI. Dissertation handbooks are distributed for use by Codirectors and students in preparing for the Candidacy Exam. Electronic copy is posted on the program website (March 2007). UCI submits Candidacy Committee requests to the Dean of Graduate Studies for final approval.

UCI CSU CSU

CSU & UCI

UCI

UCI

CSU UCI

UCI

Spring Quarter

2008

Spring Quarter June

2008 2008

June-August

2008

Fall Quarter

2008

Fall Quarter

2008

Upon approval of the Candidacy Committee by the UCI Dean of Graduate Studies, formal notice of approval is sent to the student, the CSU Codirector, and the committee members. Students begin initial work on Dissertation Proposal under the guidance of their CSU Advisor /Dissertation Chair. Students begin ED 294 (4 units): Third Year Seminar: Dissertation Planning and Design (with Mark Warschauer in 2007) and ED 299 (4 units): Dissertation Research (with UCI Primary Reader member of the Candidacy Committee). Students also enroll in ED 281 (4 units): Evaluation of Educational Programs. Students enrolled in ED 299 must meet at least twice during the summer with the ED 299 instructor (the UCI Primary Reader) to review progress on the Dissertation Proposal in order to receive a grade for the course. When possible, the CSU Dissertation Chair should participate in one or more meetings. Upon recommendation of the Chair and the UCI Primary Reader, student sends electronic and hard copy of dissertation proposal to Candidacy Committee members and Chair schedules Candidacy Examination. Candidacy Committee convenes. Student Advances to Candidacy or is directed to revise Dissertation Proposal. If student advances to Candidacy, outside member does not continue and four remaining Candidacy Committee members become the Dissertation Committee with the Candidacy Committee Chair becoming the Dissertation Chair. If revision is required, the student may be asked to prepare a MOU summarizing the changes and submit a revised proposal. If the student does not pass the Candidacy Examination, s/he has three months to prepare another proposal and present before a new Candidacy Committee.

UCI

CSU UCI

UCI & CSU

CSU & UCI

CSU & UCI

September-June*

200809 2009

March-August*

Students enroll in CSU equivalent of ED 299: Dissertation Research (8 units) at CSU Home Campus to complete dissertation and prepare for Final Defense Final Defense scheduled following approval of Chair and Primary Reader.

CSU

CSU & UCI

* CSU/UCI Joint Ed.D. students continue to pay quarterly program fees until graduation.

UCI Office of Graduate Studies Graduate Student Deadlines for Doctoral Degree Paperwork 2008-2009
Spring 2008* Advancement to Candidacy Forms- Ph.D. (Ed.D.) Form 1** (to be eligible for a Summer 08 degree) June 13, 2008 Final Degree Paperwork*** (To be eligible for a Spring 08 Degree) June 6, 2008

Summer 2008* Advancement to Candidacy Forms- Ph.D. (Ed.D.) Form 1** (to be eligible for a Fall 08 degree) September 19, 2007 Final Degree Paperwork*** (To be eligible for a Summer 08 Degree) September 10, 2008

Fall 2008* Advancement to Candidacy Forms- Ph.D. (Ed.D.) Form 1** (to be eligible for a Winter 09 degree) December 19, 2008 Final Degree Paperwork*** (To be eligible for a Fall 07 Degree) December 5, 2008

Winter 2009* Advancement to Candidacy Forms- Ph.D. (Ed.D.) Form 1** (to be eligible for a Spring 09 degree) March 24, 2009 Final Degree Paperwork*** (To be eligible for a Winter 09 Degree) Spring 2009* Graduate Student Diploma and Commence Forms (for Spring 09 graduates) March 13, 2009

March 24, 2009

Advancement to Candidacy Forms- Ph.D. (Ed.D.) Form 1** (to be eligible for a Summer 09 degree) June 12, 2009 Final Degree Paperwork*** (To be eligible for a Spring 09 Degree) June 5, 2009

* Dates are subject to change. ** UC Irvine uses the Ph.D. form for the Ed.D. *** Final degree paperwork includes dissertation approval by University Archives.

Graduation Dates for 2008

CSU Fullerton CSU Long Beach CSU Los Angeles UC Irvine Cal Poly Pomona

Saturday, May 18th, 8:00 am Thursday, May 29th, 5:00 pm Saturday, June 7th, 8:00 am Sunday, June 7th, 4:30 pm Sunday, June 15th, 4:30 pm

Procedures

Dissertation Proposal, Procedures, and Committees

Overview Following completion of course work, the student takes an oral qualifying examination (Candidacy Examination) before a five-person Candidacy Committee. This examination is centered around the student's dissertation proposal. Upon passing the examination, the student advances to candidacy and writes the dissertation under the supervision of a four-person Dissertation Committee. The student defends the completed dissertation in front of the Dissertation Committee. The process is governed by the regulations of the UC Academic Senate and Graduate Council and the proposed CSU/UCI MOU/Bylaws, dated April 19, 2004. Following is a more detailed description of each step. The Dissertation Proposal The student develops a formal dissertation proposal that is to include the topic, central question(s), background, rationale, specific objectives, research protocol and methodology, and significance of the dissertation. A typical proposal is between 25 and 35 double-spaced pages, but can be longer.1 Upon the recommendation of his/her advisor, the student submits copies of the proposal to the Candidacy Committee in advance of the Candidacy Examination. The Candidacy Committee The dissertation proposal is defended by the student in front of the Candidacy Committee (this constitutes the oral qualifying examination, as described below). All five members of the Candidacy Committee must be voting members of the UC Academic Senate or tenured or tenuretrack faculty on participating CSU campuses or other tenured or tenure-track faculty approved as Exception by UC Irvine Office of Graduate Studies. Members shall have (a) a full-time academic appointment on the campus, (b) a Ph.D. or an Ed.D. in a field relevant to the study of education, and (c) a record of academic accomplishment in education or a related field as demonstrated by achievements in research and evaluation, scholarly publications, and/or related academic work. The Committee must include at least two faculty members from CSU and two from UCI with the fifth member typically from either of the two campuses, unless an exception has been granted. The Chair of the Committee will be affiliated with the CSU. At least one member must be from outside the field of education and may not hold either a primary or joint appointment in the Department of Education at UCI or in an academic unit administering the Joint Doctoral Program on a participating CSU campus. The student, the student's advisor, and the CSU Co-director will identify the CSU members and any requested UCI members for the proposed five-member Candidacy Committee. The CSU Co-director will forward the proposed Committee to the Program Coordinator, who in turn will forward the document to the Chair of the UCI Department of Education, who will recommend the Committee to the Dean of Graduate Studies at UCI. The Dean of Graduate Studies at UCI will evaluate and approve the proposed Committee membership and appoint the Candidacy Committee in accordance with Academic Senate Regulations 915 and 918.
1 Examples of CSU/UCI Dissertation Proposals are available on a password-accessed section on the program website: http://www.gse.uci.edu/csu-uci-edd under Dissertation Proposals.

Candidacy Examination (Oral Qualifying Exam) and Advancement to Candidacy Ordinarily the Candidacy Examination consists of a review by the Candidacy Committee of the student's dissertation proposal. When, by unanimous vote, the Committee decides the student is qualified for the dissertation phase, it recommends Advancement to Candidacy to the Graduate Council via the Graduate Dean. The student pays a $65 Advancement to Candidacy fee to the UCI Cashier's Office. Students who do not pass on the first attempt will have one opportunity to retake the Candidacy Examination within three months. The Dissertation Committee The Dissertation Committee, with primary guidance from the Committee Chair (who is also the student's advisor), supervises the research and writing of the dissertation and is responsible for approving the final dissertation. Ordinarily, the responsibilities of the outside member of the Candidacy Committee cease upon the candidates advancement. The remaining four members of the Candidacy Committee continue as members of the Dissertation Committee. Researching and Writing the Dissertation The dissertation will present the results of the candidate's independent research and will contribute to the body of knowledge in education. During the dissertation phase, the candidate enrolls at the CSU campus for eight units per quarter/semester and pays quarterly program fees beginning in the fall of the third academic year. Students are encouraged to attend the dissertation workshops sponsored by the Office of Research and Graduate Studies and announced in the Graduate Voice newsletter for graduate students. All dissertations must conform to University regulations and specifications with regard to format and method of preparation. These are described in Manuscript Preparation: Standards and Procedures, Master's Theses and Ph.D. Dissertations (Office of Research and Graduate Studies and University Archives, UCI Library http://www.lib.uci.edu/libraries/collections/special/thesis/tdmanual.html). Students are encouraged to attend an information session in which procedures for manuscript preparation and filing are discussed. The information sessions are offered quarterly. Lapse of Candidacy Candidacy for the Ed.D. will lapse automatically if the student loses graduate standing by academic disqualification or failure to comply with the University policy on continuous registration. Final Examination: Defense of Dissertation The Dissertation Committee will conduct a final oral examination during which the candidate defends the dissertation. Ordinarily, the final exam will be given while the student is in residence during a regular academic session. Approval of the Dissertation The Dissertation Committee certifies that the completed dissertation is satisfactory through the signatures of all four Committee members on the signature page of the completed

dissertation. The Dissertation Committee recommends, by submission of Ph.D. Form II the conferral of the Ed.D. (Ph.D. Form II - http://www.rgs.uci.edu/grad/students/forms.htm). Submission of the Dissertation The submission of the dissertation is the last step in the program leading to the award of the Ed.D. Students submit the dissertation to the UCI manuscript librarian who accepts it for deposit in University Archives. Students also submit a copy to the CSU campus librarian. The dissertation must be submitted to UCI by the deadline in the quarter in which the degree is to be conferred. Friday of the tenth week of classes is the deadline for submission during each quarter. Those students who complete requirements and submit the dissertation after the end of the tenth week of classes and prior to the start of the subsequent quarter will earn a degree for the following quarter, but will not be required to pay fees for that quarter. Time Limits The required program of study is designed to be completed in three to four years. A leave of absence or other exception to the program of study will only be considered under special circumstances.

Resources

BOOKS FOR DISS ERTATION PREP ARATION

Note: Some books are available for checkout from Ed.D. Library. Books are not listed in any particular order. Not all listed are in APA style.

1. Bolker, J. (1998). Writing your dissertation in fifteen minutes a day. New York; Henry Holt and Company. 2. David, G. B. and Parker, C. A. (1979). Writing the doctoral dissertation. Hauppauge, New York: Barrons Educational Series, Inc. 3. Fink, A. (1998). Conducting Research Literature Reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 4. Glatthorn, A. (1998) Writing the winning dissertation: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
5. Locke, L. F., Silverman, S., and Spirduso, W. W. (2000). Proposals that work: A guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

6. Madsen, David. Successful dissertations and theses. ISBN 1-5542-389-2 Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers 350 Sansome St. San Francisco, CA 94104 7. Mauch, J.E. and Park, N. (2003). Guide to the successful thesis and dissertation: A handbook for students and faculty. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 8. Newman, I., Benz, C. R., McNeil, K., and Weis, D. Theses and dissertations: A guide to writing in the social and physical sciences. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. 1-800-462-6420 ISBN 0-7618-0815-9. 4720 Boston Way. Lanham, MD 20706 9. Rudestam K.E. and Newton, R.R. (2001). Surviving your dissertation - A comprehensive guide to content and process (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

DEAR ABBY FOR DOCTORAL STUDENTS!

Source: Amazon.com Book Reviews Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day: A Guide to Starting, Revising, and Finishing Your Doctoral Thesis
by Joan Bolker Paperback: 256 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.53 x 8.11 x 5.48 Publisher: Owl Books; (August 1998) ISBN: 080504891X Average Customer Review: Based on 24 reviews. Offers suggestions on how to create a writing addiction so that

you feel incomplete if you don't write every day and stresses the need to set reasonable goals and deadlines for yourself to keep from getting discouraged. She also offers strategies for dealing with both internal and external distractions and for fending off writer's block. Even more important is the advice on some of the more awkward issues related to dissertation writing, such as how to choose your adviser carefully. (For example, when faced with the tradeoff between a famous advisor who is inaccessible and a less famous advisor who is willing to make time for you, Bolker advises, "If choosing a politically advantageous, famous advisor makes it unlikely that you'll complete your degree, it's clearly not worth it.") The book even includes a helpful appendix for advisers that could become the basis for an honest discussion of what student and adviser can expect from each other. Throughout this excellent book, Bolker acts as a therapist, cheerleader, and drill sergeant, all rolled into one. Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process
by Kjell Erik Rudestam (Author), Rae R. Newton (Author) Paperback: 312 pages; Dimensions (in inches): 0.63 x 9.00 x 6.24 Publisher: Sage Publications; 2nd edition (January 15, 2001) ISBN: 0761919627 In-Print Editions: Hardcover (2nd) | All Editions Average Customer Review: Based on 1 review. Rudestam and Newton provide

readers with expert advice on the entire dissertation process; selecting a suitable topic, conducting a review of the literature, building an argument, presenting the material, presenting data and results and managing data overload, methods for developing appropriate writing skills, ways to construct tables and figures, working with faculty committees, and dealing with emotional blocks. Writing the Doctoral Dissertation: A Systematic Approach
by Gordon B. Davis, Clyde A. Parker Paperback: 160 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.39 x 7.96 x 5.32 Publisher: Barrons Educational Series; 2nd edition (June 1997) ISBN: 0812098005 Average Customer Review: Based on 4 reviews Reviewer: An Amazon.com Customer As someone who works privately with students, helping them with dissertations, I highly recommend this book. When students call me in regard to assistance with their dissertation, I recommend that they buy this book and use it as an ongoing reference. The information contained in this book anticipates and answers many of the questions that students have about the dissertation process. It is the most practical guideline for writing a dissertation that I have come across in recent years.

How to Complete and Survive a Doctoral Dissertation

by David Sternberg Paperback: 231 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.63 x 8.25 x 5.48 Publisher: St. Martin's Press; (July 1981) ISBN: 0312396066 Average Customer Review: Based on 14 reviewsReviewer: David H. Peterzell, Ph.D. (see more about me) from San Diego, CA United States: This book was my "bible" during grad school; it was my "mentor" as I fought to complete my dissertation. As I've counseled graduate students over the years, many have found this book helpful. I wholeheartedly recommend it, despite some of my comments below. Sternberg spent years working as a dissertation counselor, and he knows what he's talking about. Here are some features that I found particularly helpful: 1. This book *is* about survival. Of course, Sternberg could spend more space discussing formatting and other gritty details. This book is more concerned about cutting to the chase - how to get a Ph.D. in the minimum amount of time, with the minimum amount of damage and the maximum amount of personal and professional growth. 2. It communicates very effectively to us that the process is typically lonely, dangerous, and costly. The process frequently ends badly. Sternberg focuses on practical solutions that carry us through. 3. He anticipates many barriers to completing a dissertation, and provides valuable advice for getting past them. For instance, he discusses issues such as (a) difficult members of the committee, (b) sexual harassment, (c) difficulties staying motivated, and (d) effective (and ineffective) ways to get support from friends, faculty members, and professional counselors. His advice isn't always politically correct (e.g., tolerating sexual harassment), but it reflects the voice of a strongly opinionated, experienced mentor who is aware of worst case scenarios and ways to survive them. In my own case, he was dead on, in various ways. I needed to stay focused on completing my work while tolerating and minimizing the damaging effects of my committee-member-from-hell. I needed to make sure my work was "good enough" while dispensing with the "magnum opus" myth.

Proposals That Work : A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals
by Lawrence F. Locke (Author), Waneen Wyrick Spirduso (Author), Stephen J. Silverman (Author) Paperback: 368 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.74 x 9.10 x 6.22 Publisher: Sage Publications; 4th edition (August 1999) ISBN: 0761917071 In-Print Editions: Hardcover (4th) | All Editions Average Customer Review: Based on 1 review Book News, Inc.

A discussion of the proposal-writing process includes generic information that applies to all research proposals as well as issues specific to the use of proposals in graduate education and funding agencies. Discussion covers ethics and research, common problems in proposal development, content considerations, qualitative research, style and form, and the oral presentation. Also covered is the securing of money for research and funding. Additionally, four specimen proposals are provided. -- Copyright 1999 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR All rights reserved Book News, Inc., Portland, OR --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Writing the Winning Dissertation : A Step-by-Step Guide

by Allan A. Glatthorn (Author). Paperback: 240 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.57 x 9.10 x 6.20 Publisher: Corwin Press; (April 1998) ISBN: 0803966784 In-Print Editions: Hardcover | All Editions Average Customer Review: Based on 1 review. Reviewer: benton_j from Cottondale, Florida USA. Writing the Winning Dissertation was the only guide I needed when writing my dissertation. After I completed my research study and began to try to pull my data and research information together in a cohesive manner, I was at a loss. This book led me step-by-step through the process. The guide is straight-forward and easy to follow. It explains exactly what you need to include in your dissertation and describes the order in which the information should occur. For me, it was a lifesaver!

Thinking on Paper
by V.a. Howard (Author), J.h. Barton (Author) Paperback: 160 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.50 x 8.26 x 5.54.Publisher: William Morrow; (February 1988) ISBN: 0688077587 | All Editions Average Customer Review: Based on 4 reviews.

Most books on writing assume that the sole purpose of writing is communication. These manuals seldom go beyond teaching how to avoid the problems of punctuation, grammar, and style that at one time or another ensnare the best of writers. Few, if any, of these books explore writing as a way of shaping thought. V.A. Howard and J.H. Barton, two Harvard researchers in education, take a radically different approach. While they agree with their predecessors that an important function of writing is the clear, direct expression of thought, they point out that many of our thoughts first come into being only when put to paper. By failing to recognize the link between thinking and writing, we fall into the deadlock inappropriately named writer's block. Thinking on Paper shows how writer's block, as well as many other writing problems, are engendered by the tendency, supported by traditional approaches, to separate thinking from writing. Drawing on the developing field of symbol theory, Howard and Barton explain why this separation is unsound and demonstrate how to improve dramatically our ability to generate and express ideas. For everyone who writes, this is a readable, accessible manual of immense educational and practical value.

Locating Dissertations in the UC Irvine Library*

1 - D is s er t at io n i s b y a U CI s tu de n t ( a ny ye ar ): There is a bound, paper copy in the UCI Libraries, and you can request it from your CSU campus via InterLibrary Loan (ILL), and it will be sent to your CSU library for you to pick up (unless you have document delivery service there). If you request it via the UCI Libraries' DDS service, it will be sent to your mailbox at Berkeley Place, so the CSU ILL route is better, since it eliminates the need to drive to UCI. To fill out the CSU ILL form, cut and paste the details it requires from the ANTPAC record for the dissertation. 2 - D is s er t at io n i s b y a U C s t ud en t ( a n y c am pu s ) f ro m 1 99 7-2 0 05 : Full-text is available online via FREE DOWNLOAD. Note this button at the left of each Digital Dissertations record for a UC dissertation from 1997-2005. Click on that button and follow the directions to receive by email a URL with which you can download the fulltext of the book-length work. The URL will be good for 72 hours, so take advantage of the FREE DOWLOAD when you have time to act on it right away. This usually means loading up your printer if you want to print out the entire thing, but you may of course choose to print only certain pages/chapters--up to you. This route may substitute for #1 above, but if you can wait, you can borrow the paper copy and not use up so much paper and toner. 3 - D is s er t at io n i s b y a U C s t ud en t f r o m 1 99 6 o r e ar li e r: Digital Dissertations, then fill out your CSU ILL form. 4 - D is s er t at io n i s b y a n o n- U C st u de n t , a ny y e ar: Dissertations, then fill out your CSU ILL form. Search for it via

Search for it via Digital

NB: I don't know the details of the ILL service at your CSU, but at UCI, ILL to graduate students and faculty is fully subsidized. So, if there is a charge to borrow a dissertation, the UCI Libraries pay for it. If no borrow-able copy can be found (e.g., the dissertation is only at the library of the school where it was earned, and that school does not let its dissertations circulate), the UCI Libraries will purchase a loose, unbound copy and give it to you to keep. If your CSU library passes along to you any ILL fees it incurs for borrowing dissertations (or other materials), you may consider using your UCI ILL service instead, but that means you'll have to come to UCI to get it from your BP mailbox. Also, you'll need to check your My ANTPAC account (at <http://antpac.lib.uci.edu/>http://antpac.lib.uci.edu/, see the left frame) to see that the dissertation has arrived (and will show up as having been checked out to you and has a due-date), since DDS deliveries are not announced via email--they just show up in your BP mailbox. Borrowed dissertations must be returned, and the loan periods vary, depending on the library that provided it, so letting a dissertation sit in your mailbox means fewer days in which to read it before returning it. Weighing a CSU ILL fee against coming to UCI to get ILL-borrowed/DDS'd materials from your mailbox and then making another trip to campus to return them is up to you (time, gas, parking). Parking here is much worse than during summer, but if you come in the late afternoon, evening, or on the weekend, it's manageable. If you choose the UCI route, the fastest way to use the UCI ILL service is to identify the dissertation in Worldcat, then take advantage of the UC-eLinks button in each record to Request it via ILL. For dissertations not in Worldcat, search Digital Dissertations and then cut and paste the details (author, title, date, etc.) into the UCI ILL form for dissertations (see <http://antpac.lib.uci.edu/illd>http://antpac.lib.uci.edu/illd).

Qualitative Research
Compiled by Dr. Joyce Lee, CSU Fullerton 2005 Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Delamount, S. (1992). Fieldwork in educational settings: Methods, pitfalls and perspectives. London: Falmer. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. Mann, C. & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peshkin, A. (2000). The nature of interpretation in qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 29(9), 5-9. Rossman, G. & Rallis, S. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Seal, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J., Silverman, D. (2004). Handbook of data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd.Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Weis, L. & Fine, M. (2000). Speed bumps: A student-friendly guide to qualitative research. Teachers College Press, New York, NY. New Paradigm/Action Research Anderson, G. & Jones, F. (2000). Knowledge generation in educational administration from the inside out: The promise and perils of site-based administrator research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 3 428-464. Anderson, G., Herr, K., Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own school: An educators guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Anderson, G. & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28, 5, 12-21, 40. Bray, J., Lee, J. Smith, L., and Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice: Action, reflection, and making meaning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Calhoun, E. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Coghlan, D. & Brannick, T. (2001). Doing action research in your own organization. Greenwood, D. & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herr, K. & Anderson, G. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2002). Action research: Principles and practice. London, England: Routledge, Farmer. Mills, G. (2000). Action research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall. Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sagor, R. (2000). Collaborative action research for educational change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Yearbook, 169-191. Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Discourse Analysis Gee, J. P. (1999). Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routlege. Labov, W. (1982). Speech actions and reactions in personal narrative. In D. Tanner (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp.219-247). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. MacLure, Maggie (2003). Discourse in educational and social research. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2002). Methods of critical discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ethnography Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (2001). Handbook of ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Campbell, M. & Gregor, F. (2002). Doing institutional ethnography: A primer in mapping social relations. Garamond Press Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic field notes. Chicago university of Chicago Press. Pink, S. (2001). Doing visual ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Reinehart & Winston. Phenomenology Gubrium, J.F., & Holstein, J.A. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 487-508). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany: SUNY Press. Case Study Research Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scholz, R. & Tietje, O. Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Travers, M. (2001). Qualitative research through case studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R.K. Case study research: Design and methods (3nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Field Methods and Techniques Bernard, R. (2003). Field methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gubrium, J, & Holstein, J. (2003). Postmodern interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holstein, J. & Gubrium, J. (2003). Inside interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krueger, R. & Casey, M. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Articles

Dissertation Notes #1

WHAT IS A DISSERTATION? SOME BASIC EXPECTATIONS

(Provided by UCI/UCLA Joint Ed.D. Program)

Dissertations are academic works that are intended to demonstrate an individual's ability to undertake scholarship in a field. They reflect the preparation of an individual to understand and create scholarship through intellectual endeavor and use of research skills. They demonstrate the ability to build theory, test ideas, and/or discover new knowledge2. A fundamental expectation for dissertations is that the problem that will be studied is an important one. It should be one that is worthy of substantial inquiry, one that warrants investigation due to its centrality to the field of study or to issues of practice. The problem may, for example, be a significant one due to its contributing new knowledge to a central question in the field, its relationship to an important problem of practice, its having implications for social policies, its creating a new instrument for addressing a question, or for a range of other reasons.3 A second expectation for dissertations is that they will be thoroughly embedded in the research literature on the topics selected for investigation. The specification of the problem will reflect a deep understanding and analysis of the research literature. The question(s) explored in the dissertation will be located within the universe of ideas that compose and relate to the body of literature on the topic.4 Research involves an element of discovering new knowledge. Hence, a third expectation is that all dissertations will involve original investigation. This may mean the collection and analysis of original data, re-analysis of existing data, or other forms of original analysis related to the problem selected for investigation. Research designs may take many forms for discovering new knowledge. They may be descriptive, exploratory, or experimental, for example, and may use many types of qualitative of quantitative data.5 A fourth and related expectation is that a dissertation will set out to find new answers to the question being explored. In the case of dissertations examining particular programs or innovations, for example, it is important to point out what dissertation research is and is not. A dissertation entails exploring a problem fully to answer a question or a set of questions. This is different from beginning with a set of expectations and then seeking and presenting data supportive of these expectations. The latter would not be appropriate for a dissertation because it does not represent genuine inquiry.

Kerchner, Charles T., Dissertation craftsmanship, Unpublished manuscript, Spring, 1994, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA., pp. 1-2. 3 Ibid, p. 4. 4 Newman, I., Benz, C., Weis, D. And McNeil, K. (1997). Theses and dissertations: A guide to writing in the social and physical sciences. Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, p. 15. 5 Kerchner, op cit., p. 7.
2

In conducting an investigation on a particular program or innovation, a range of questions and methodologies can be used to craft a rigorous research study. Examples of productive research questions might include: Is this program effective? In what ways? To what degree? Under what conditions is the program effective? How does effectiveness vary among different conditions? For whom is the program effective? What are its effects with different populations? What background factors influence program outcomes? What implementation factors influence program outcomes? In understanding the expectations for dissertations, it is also important to address the circumstance in which two or more individuals work in a shared area of research. The expectation is that each individual will conduct independent scholarship and will prepare an independent dissertation. There is not an inherent problem with a number of individuals conducting research on a common problem area, but the expectation is that they will undertake and write separate pieces of work demonstrating their ability to contribute independently to scholarship.

Dissertation Craftsmanship
Charles T. Kerchner (Claremont College) This short paper is written to aid students in planning and executing their dissertation research. There are parallels to other kinds of research, such as institutional research or grant and contract work, but dissertations are a particular research form with special requirements that deserve to be addressed directly, and thus I leave to the reader the determination of whether the protocols discussed here are useful in other areas of research. There are two aspects to the paper. The first, and by all rights the most important, can fairly be called folklore; I will try to explain what I think research is and how one can go about it and retain at least partial sanity. The second aspect of the paper is technology including standard designs of research, some checklists for evaluating your research ideas and plans, and bibliographic references to some of the classics and gems in the field. What is a Dissertation? Dissertations have many purposes. Sometimes they are a person's most significant academic work, an important critical statement or seminal academic contribution. But more often they mark the transition to scholarship. Even when they don't save the world good dissertations stand as lively and interesting products, and more importantly their authors carry with them new skills and insights as a result of the process. The authors say, "This changed my life," and smile when they say it. Some also become extremely useful guides to policy and practice, but to insist that dissertations have immediate and dramatic application is often to ask too much. At the core, a dissertation is a demonstration. Dissertations, first of all, demonstrate scholarship. Different writers and professors explain it variously as a "contribution to the field" or "the discovery of new knowledge" or "the building of theory" or the "testing of an idea," all of which suggest that the writer has gained an appreciation for scholarship and the ability to discern and create it. Second, dissertations demonstrate research skills. The way in which a dissertation research project is carried out tells the committee (and often future prospective employers) what level of technical or artistic skill a student possesses and how well organized he/she is. A dissertation in which there are serious mistakes in research design or one that took five years too long to complete makes an eloquent statement about the author. Third, and most fundamentally, dissertations are about intellectual craftsmanship. They are about creating a series of thought processes by which the author comes to engage and make sense out of the world. One's conceptual lenses get ground. In education, this process is probably more difficult than in most other areas of study, for scholarship in education does not rest on a single discipline. Although the vast majority of educational studies have roots in psychological thought and method, many people who consider themselves educators carry with them the ways of thinking of economists, political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, and a few mathematicians or attorneys. Importantly, each has formed a way of looking at the world during

graduate studies.

When Should I Start to Think About a Dissertation Topic? Right now. There are real dangers in prematurely deciding on a research topic for it is to close one's mind early in graduate work to intriguing and interesting experiences that would lead to professional and intellectual growth unimaginable before. However, there is a greater danger of not training oneself to think as an inquirer, a researcher. Trying to put things in researchable terms is a very good exercise throughout graduate work. Selecting a Research Topic This is the hardest part. Students often spend frustrating weeks or months trying to decide on a dissertation topic. The effort, though not the frustration, is in most cases well directed. Trying to find the right problem and to define it is worthy of great consideration, and a well-chosen problem makes the process and the results more worthwhile. Some questions to ask yourself: 1. Can the topic be expressed in terms of a concept or idea (adaptation, social exchange, conflict, maturation), and can I express the research questions in conceptual terms? 2. Do I know enough about past research in this area to relate my proposed study to those which have been done in the past (is it an extension of the work done by Jones and Smedley, a different approach to the same problem, a verification, a different population)? By the way, never tell a professor that no one else has ever done work on this subject. 3. Can you write a brief statement of the problem incorporating its linkages to past research? 4. Can you describe the significance of the problem with reference to: a. its timeliness b. relationship to a practical problem c. relationship to an important audience d. filling a gap in the research e. allowing generalization to broader principles of social interaction f. creating a new instrument for observing or analyzing data g. allowing access to a difficult-to-study population

5. Is it possible to describe your problem in terms of hypothetical statements? In the simplest terms a problem is a question that asks about the relationship between two or more variables, the answer being what is sought in the research. An hypothesis is an operational statement of a problem that carries clear implications for testing the presence or absence of the conditions being investigated, e.g., time spent studying increases amount learned. Not all studies are amenable to hypothesis testing, but hypotheses are very powerful guides to the researcher because once formed they tell the researcher what to do; they define the research. 6. Do you have an idea about how to go about doing the research? At the point of sorting out research topics, one is not expected to have a completed plan of research in mind, but one of the tests of a good research question is whether one can think of some way to make it operational. 7. Does the research seem feasible? As yourself: Do I think that I have the resources to do this? Can I gain access to the persons or information necessary? Can I finish the work in a reasonable amount of time? (A good rule of thumb for a tight dissertation of good quality is that it ought be completable in a year--from proposal to final draft and defense--by a person working at it substantially full time.) 8. Does the faculty have the necessary expertise to help me with a study in this area and if not do I have access to "readers" from other institutions who would help direct my research? Whereas our faculty tend to be generalists, it is important not to ask chairs to serve in areas where they have little experience. It's not fair to them or you. 9. Will this dissertation allow you to avoid working with people you don't like? My dog thinks I'm great all of the time; my wife and children most of the time. After that the percentages go down. Don't do your dissertation with someone you can't stand. Conversely, don't be offput by strangers. If there is a faculty person whom you think has interests similar to yours or whose style of research you identity with, then spend some time talking with that person about your dissertation ideas. The time in exploration is well worth it. 10. Can you visualize problems that are likely to come up in the research and what you would do about them? 11. Is this an area of genuine interest for you? Ask yourself if you would be happy doing work in this area for 5 years. Dissertation research often turns into an occupational specialty. 12. Is this consistent with your career plans? If the answer is "no" and you feel a compelling pull toward the research topic, then maybe you have the wrong career plans and the right research topic.

There is no single technology of research idea gathering. Some people's minds center on neat, highly researchable, topics. Most don't. One of the best ways is to read other research in the area of potential research. Don't read about research, read the research itself. Ask yourself what are the conceptual underpinnings of the research, how much you know about the content area involved, and whether you could do a project like the one undertaken in the research you are reading. Another possibility is to attempt to write the topic, see if it can be expressed in a sentence or a paragraph. When this is done to the point you don't cringe too badly at your own words, try discussing your idea with other students, faculty you think might be interested, and the types of people who might be your research subjects if you actually did the research. Don't be afraid to discard or modify. The most direct way to test your ideas about design is to wade into the field you plan to study. If you plan to study the job mobility of college deans, go talk to half a dozen. If you plan to study how teachers allocate their time, invest a day sitting in the back of a classroom. If you want to study disadvantaged youth, go spend several afternoons at a sandwich stand or doing yard duty at an elementary school. Most students tend to make their research designs neater than the world they are attempting to investigate. Academics, by the way, aid and abet this problem. Their journal articles and research reports make it seem that the entire research process was organized and conceptualized in one bite of the mind. It's very seldom the case. The Research Proposal The research proposal is the rock upon which you build your work. It defines what you are going to do in operational terms, and it helps make clear the faculty's expectations of you. All dissertations depart from the dissertation proposal, some in substantial degree, because the researchers found that for one reason or another parts of the research needed to be modified. But having a clear proposal is of great importance. It gives you something to stand on if you get in deep water later. Generally proposals should be about 20 pages long and should contain the following: 1. A brief statement of the problem in operational terms. This is the honed and polished version of the problem statement you've been working on. (1 page or less) 2. A statement of the importance of the research to theory, practice and policy. This statement must show the importance rather than just assert or claim it. (e.g., this research involves a reinterpretation of the concept of alienation.) (2 to 3 pages) 3. A brief review of the literature and its application. This section has two very specific and important uses, neither of which has anything to do with impressing your committee with the fact that you have read a lot of books in the topic area: (1) it establishes the relationship of your research to the concepts you are using, and (2) it establishes the relationship between your work and the empirical research of others. (5-7 pages)

4. A statement of specific objectives and hypotheses. (1-3 pages) 5. A description (in 7 to 10 pages) of how the research will be undertaken including: a. a description of the population, the study site(s) or samples and the means used to choose the sample. b. a list of the key variables and how they will be operationalized. c. a discussion of the research design--exploratory, descriptive, experimental, and the strengths and drawbacks to that design. d. a discussion of how one will acquire the data, and if primary data are to be gathered the feasibility of questionnaire, interview, observation or whatever methods are to be used. Why this means of collecting data is preferable to challenging methods. (Draft copies of any instruments should be included in the Appendix of the proposal.) e. a discussion of the statistical or other analytical methods that will be used. Include blank charts or tables that you expect to represent your output. 6. A timetable for the dissertation research showing both the chronology of the research and the number of person days involved in each step. (1 page) --pilot study and pretests of instruments --gathering field data or getting secondary data in workable form --preliminary analysis --contingency plans for return to gather additional data if problems appear with the first --analysis of the data --writing the report --review by chair and committee --revisions --review of the final draft --proofreading and editing --final approval by chair and committee

--oral examination --typing --submission of final copies The Dissertation Outline Opinion about the architecture of dissertations varies from professor to professor, and indeed from topic to topic--and with some of us from moment to moment. Here is my best sense of a standard personal preference. Chapter I has two primary functions which make it both the easiest and hardest chapter to write. It is an introduction in which the goals of the research are stated, the background of the problem sketched and the research itself is introduced and its importance established. That's the easy part, and it directly flows from the dissertation proposal. The second and more difficult function of Chapter I is to serve as a net to capture the reader, to summarize enough of the research or telegraph its direction so that the reader will be able to understand the data and literature that you will be presenting in the following chapter. This requires asking yourself: "What facts or data does the reader have to understand first in order to get ready to read chapters 2-5?" Suppose you were doing a dissertation on equity in education involving the social regard that teachers had for students of low SES and high. You had drawn a sample, reviewed the literature on social modeling, scored teachers on the amount and quality of attention that they gave different students, and ultimately come to the conclusion that teachers were not systematically biased against poor children but that variation was a function of the teacher's attitudes. You conclude that one of the ways to redress the problem of inequality in teacher perception would be to let children and their parents choose the teachers with whom they studied, and so you advocate a voucher system to change schools. Now, that's traveling a lot of territory. You need to get the reader ready to understand your conclusion that moves from a psychological concept, "social regard," to a conclusion involving school finance and structural reform. The reader has to understand the connection: What is really going on here? What is going on is that you are engaged in an expansion of the concept of equity as applied to school policy. Most equity studies have been concerned with sameness in the provision of resources, largely dollars, between school districts and sometimes within them. What you are asserting is that human regard and status is a resource. The reader has to understand that first before it is possible to make the conceptual turn to your conclusion. Once the reader understands that status is considered as a resource, then he or she is prepared to accept a line of reasoning that suggests that no amount of inservice education or human development workshops can be expected to inure all teachers to poor children, but the best defense of poor children would be to arm them with the ability to seek those teachers who did apparently get along well with poor students. Write Chapter I last.

Chapter II is a review of the relevant theory and empirical literature whose function expands upon, and is parallel to, that of the same section in the proposal. It presents the argument of the dissertation. Chapter III is a presentation of the methods employed in the research: everything from the proposal plus a more detailed presentation of the analytical techniques used, why they were preferable to others, and explaining any unusual or problem circumstances encountered and how they were dealt with. Also include a brief description of the sample researched. Copies of any instruments should go in an Appendix. Chapter IV contains the presentation of the data and the analysis thereof. There is great variation in these chapters depending on the research style used, an experimental design looking a great deal different from an ethnography, but the functions are the same. The first job is to get the reader to understand the nature of the sample. In descriptive studies, basic descriptive statistics are introduced. In an ethnography, one would describe the institution, the people in it, those aspects of the environment that will prove important later. The second function is to address the specific research questions that were introduced in the proposal and in Chapter I of the dissertation. this is where you really show your analytical stuff. In an ethnography it might involve showing how the sample divides into two belief systems over a particular topic. In a descriptive study it might involve the use of discriminate analysis to show that votes on certain types of issues separated Democrats from Republicans. Chapter V should include a discussion and an interpretation of the meaning of these results. It should begin with a summary, and end with recommendations for additional research or for policy and practice. In the Appendices include copies of instruments used and tables and charts too lengthy and tangential to be included in the main report, some descriptive statistics or interview transcripts for instance. Submitting Chapters of the Dissertation There is a great variation in the working arrangements that exist between dissertation chairs and students working on their research, and thus the reporting arrangement that follows is much more a guide than a rule: 1. Immediately after the proposal is written (if not during the writing process), undertake a pilot study of the dissertation research. Modify the instrumentation according to the results of the field experience. 2. Submit Chapter II as revised, the argument of the dissertation. 3. Submit Chapter III as revised, the methods employed. 4. Report on the status of field research gathering about half way through the process.

5. Turn in a rough draft of Chapter IV, the data and its analysis. 6. Revise Chapter IV. 7. Write Chapter V, the conclusions. 8. Confer over the internal flow and fit of the dissertation taken as a whole. 9. Write Chapter I. 10. Submit whole dissertation and prepare for oral defense. In the Appendices include copies of instruments used and tables and charts too lengthy and tangential to be included in the main report, some descriptive statistics or interview transcripts for instance. Contents of Research Notebook As an aid to students, a number of faculty have provided suggestions for material on research techniques and examples of research carried out in different research traditions. These have been collected and placed in "The Research Notebook", the contents of which are listed below. 1. Introduction to the problem statement --exercise in creating problem statements (Kerlinger, 1986, ch. 2, 3) --relationship of problem statements to theory (Williamson et, al., 1977: 40-45; see also: Reynolds, 1971) --inductive and deductive research (Williamson, et al., 1977: 25-27) --Wicker "Getting Out of The Conceptual Rut" 2. Field Grounded Research --the method and logic, (Glaser and Strauss, 1968: 1-18; see also Schatzman and Strauss, 1973) --interviewing, (Williamson, et al., 1977, ch. 7) --interview techniques (Merton, 1956; Dexter, 1970, pp.5- 59, 119-151) --Truth in Interviews (Dean & Whyte) --writing observations (Suelzle and Pasquale, 1981) --observation, (Williamson, et al., 1977, ch. 8) --physical traces, (Webb, et al., 1971, ch. 2) --examples of the research +on unwed fathers (Pfuhl, 1978) +on Chicano prisoners (Davidson, 1978) 3. Survey Research --survey research overview (Williamson, et al., 1977: ch. 6) --writing questions (Backstrom and Hursh-Cesar, 1981: ch. 3) --designing questionnaires (Backstrom and Hursh-Cesar, 1981: ch. 4)

--drawing the sample (Backstron and Hursh-Cesar, 1981, ch 2) --probing and standard replies (Backstrom and Hursh-Cesar, 1981: 266-281) --overview of scales and indices (Williamson, et al.: ch. 15) --listing of published scales (see Miller, 1970; see Bonjean, 1967) --examples of the research +Perception of Taxes, (Williamson, 1976) +Firearm Control, (Lizotte and Bordua, 1980) +Stress in Nursing (Parasuraman & Hansen, 1987) 4. Experimental Research --requirements of experiments (Williamson, et al., 1977: ch. 9) --quasi experiments and field experiments (see Campbell and Stanley, 1965) --examples of the research +the lost letter technique (Mulgram, 1972) 5. Evaluation Research --overview (Williamson, et al., 1977: ch. 14) --critical incident research (Flannigan, 1954) --examples of research +Teaching, (Rist, 1970) +Community mobilization (Vanecko, 1969) 6. Historical Analysis and Case Studies --overview (Williamson, et al.:ch. 10) --archives (Webb et al, 1971) --examples of the research +see Kerchner and Mitchell (1988) The Changing Idea of A Teachers' Union Bibliography Ackoff, Russell L. Scientific Method: Optimizing Applied Research Decisions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Backstrom, Charles H. and Hursch-Cesar, Gerald. Survey Research 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1981. Barzun, Jacques. On Writing, Editing and Publishing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. Barzun, Jacques and Graff, Henry F. The Modern Researcher. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1957. Blaylock, Hubert M., Jr. An Introduction to Social Research. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

_____. Casual Inference in Non-Experimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1964. _____. Theory Construction: From Verbal to Mathematical Formulations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Bolan, Robert S. A Student Guide to Management Field Studies. Graduate School of Management, UCLA, 1976. Bonjean, Charles M., Hill, Richard J., and McLemore, Dale S. Sociological Measure: An Inventory of Scales and Indices. San Francisco: Chandler, 1967. Campbell, Donald Thomas and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. Cannell, Charles F. and Kahn, Robert L., "Interviewing," in Gardner, Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. II, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley, 1968, pp. 526-596. Davidson, Theordore R. "Chicago Prisoners: The Key to San Quentin," in Urban Anthropology in the United States: Four Cases, George and Louise Spindler (eds.) New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1978, pp. 8-118. Dexter, Louis A. Elite and Specialized Interviews. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970. Douglas, Jack. Investigative Social Research. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1976. Dunnette, Marvin (ed.). Handbook of Industrial Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, Inc., 1957. Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anselm L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine, 1967. Gurr, Ted Robert. Politimetrics: An Introduction to Quantitative Macropolitics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Hilton, Gordon. Intermediate Politometrics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. Huck, Schuyler, Cormier, William H., and Bounds, William G., Jr. Reading Statistics and Research. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. Hyman, Herbert M. Interviewing in Social Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.

Kahn, Robert L. and Cannell, Charles F. The Dynamics of Interviewing. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957. Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct of Inquiry. Scranton, Pennsylvania: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964. Lerner, D. and Lasswell, H.D. The Policy Sciences. Stanford: University Press, 1951. Lizotte, Alan J. and Bordua, David J. "Firearms Ownership for Sport and Protection: Two Divergent Models." American Sociological Review, 45, (April, 1980), pp. 229-244. Lutz, Frank W. and Iannaccone, Laurence. Understanding Educational Organizations: A Field Study Approach. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969. Merton, Robert K. The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1956. Merton, Robert K. and Kendall, Patricia L. "The Focused Interview." American Journal of Sociology, 51, 1946, pp. 541-557. Miller, Delbert C. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, 2nd Ed. New York: David McKay, 1970. Mills, C. Wright. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Mintzberg, Henry M. "Mintzberg Structures Observation as a Method to Study Managerial Work." Journal of Management Studies, 7, 1970, pp. 87-104. Pfuhl, Erdwin H., Jr. "The Unwed Father: 'Non-Deviant' Rule Breaker, The Sociological Quarterly, 19, (Winter, 1978), pp. 113-128. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. "Systematic Observation of Natural Social Phenomena," p. 3-2t in Herbert L. Costner (ed.) Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971. Reynolds, Paul D. A Primer in Theory Construction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971. Rist, Ray C. "Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education." Harvard Educational Review, 40, 3 (August, 1970), pp. 411-451. Rowan, Brian. "Instructional Management in Historical Perspective: Evidence on Differentation in School Districts." Educational Administration Quarterly, 18 (1), (Winter, 1982), pp. 43-59. Schatzman, Leonard and Strauss, Anselm L. Field Research: Strategies for a natural Sociology. Englwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

Suezle, Marijean and Frank L. Pasquale. "How to Record Observations: Writing Field Notes," in Field Study: A Sourcebook for Experiential Learning. Lenore Borzak (ed.) Beverly Hills: Sage, 1981, pp. 151-176. Thompson, James D. and Vroom, Victor H. (eds.) Organizational Design and Research. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1971. Vanecko, James. "Community Mobilization and Institutional Change: The Influence of the Community Action Program in Large Cities." Social Science Quarterly, 50, (December, 1969), pp. 609-630. Webb, Eugene, Campbell, Donald T., Schwartz, Richard A., and Sechrest, Lee. Nonobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971. Williamson, John B. "Beliefs About the Rich, The Poor, and the Taxes They Pay." American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 35, (January, 1976), pp. 9-29. Williamson, John B., Karp, David A., Dalphin, John R., and Gray, Paul S. The Research Craft: An Introduction to Social Research Methods, 2nd. Boston: Little, Brown, 1977.

Finishing the Dissertation

Renata Kobetts Miller (2001) The other day, as I clipped together the pages of an article I had written and sent it off to a journal, I paused to enjoy a sense of, not completion, but contentment. It reminded me of how I felt when I carried the bound copies of my dissertation across the Bloomington campus of Indiana University. I am in a different place now: I have my Ph.D. in hand, I'm spending this year as a fellow, and will start my first tenure-track job in English in the fall. So the confidence and contentment with which I sealed my journal article into an envelope is very different from the uncertainty that I felt when I began my dissertation. I've come to realize that writing my dissertation is what helped that uncertainty to fade. I'd like to offer some lessons I learned that might be helpful for the many graduate students now struggling to write their own dissertations. The first chapter was the hardest. Based on my own experience and that of others, I can say that it is not unusual for the first chapter to take a phenomenal amount of time and a greater number of revisions than any other part of the dissertation. Don't let this get you down. You're working in a new form and you don't know what a chapter should be until you've written it. I wish I could say that you'll have smooth sailing once you've mastered the first chapter -- I can't. But here's a tip that might help you maintain an even keel as you navigate your way through later chapters. Observe the rhythm of your work -- the ups and the downs -- and remind yourself of that pattern when you hit a low point. In writing my dissertation, I went through a mood cycle that was repeated in every chapter. I loved beginning chapters, because I loved reading sources and learning new things, and I liked thinking, in a very general way, about how I would use those sources. But as I began to write, I would have to face the crisis of each chapter -- the particular challenge that it posed -- and every chapter posed a different challenge. In my first chapter, the problem was how to convey why some frequently ignored texts are interesting. In my second chapter, it was how to find a niche for myself so that I could say something that had not yet been said about George Eliot. In my third chapter, it was how to handle an author whose politics I increasingly disliked, and in my fourth chapter, it was how to craft a coherent narrative from a tangle of archival sources. Grappling with these problems was demoralizing, because I didn't have faith that I would solve them. Each of these difficult phases seemed interminable. But just by keeping at it, I did solve the problems, and once I was beyond the crisis in each chapter, my mood improved. Once the chapter had its shape, I enjoyed writing, and even more, polishing it. What I learned was that I always go through that cycle in my work, not only in writing dissertation chapters. And I can sustain my energy and determination by remembering that the dismal low points, when I felt like I would never be able to say something new about George Eliot, were followed by great satisfactions. Avail yourself of writing groups if they're useful, but don't feel guilty about ditching them when they're not. In the early stages of writing the dissertation, a writing group of doctoral students in my field was a great source of motivation and feedback. Providing reciprocal advice for each other's projects built a sense of community that was encouraging. There came a point for me, however, when I needed to tune out other people's voices and just be alone with my work to stay focused and get it done. Revision may be easier if you put it off until later. Sometimes procrastination pays. When I received comments from a committee member about my first chapter, I felt overwhelmed. I didn't revise the chapter immediately, because I wanted to draft the entire dissertation and revise the chapters at the end,

once I could see the project as a whole. I did, however, receive feedback on each chapter as I completed it so that those comments could shape the chapters I had yet to write. When I returned to my reviewer's disheartening comments -- long after I had received them -- they all made sense to me. I had grown into the comments. I was able to use them productively, and they also served as a yardstick for how much I had learned about writing in the process of drafting the dissertation. Be realistic about your timeline. Give yourself a break and don't set deadlines that will only make you miserable when you can't meet them. Revision, particularly if you leave it for the end, may take longer than you had planned. As I faced the revisions that I had to do, I felt like I had sprinted toward what I thought was the end of my marathon endeavor, only to discover that the finish line was around the corner and up a two-mile-long hill. Identify the people around you who provide useful support. Among the things that I came to appreciate as a result of writing the dissertation are the loyalty and generosity of people who care about me, especially since I wasn't always the most enjoyable person to be around. I often felt that my moodiness during points of resistance in my writing made me unfit for social interaction. So I am grateful to those who not only tolerated me but stood ready with sympathetic ears and encouraging words. Relish epiphanies. There were unexpected, wonderful moments of grace as I wrote. One of those moments came when I stumbled upon the title of my dissertation as I was finishing my George Eliot chapter. I had wrestled with the title for a long time, trying to think of something clever and brief --I wanted a three-word first line. But it was while talking to my husband on an airplane that the title just came to me. He had read a draft of my George Eliot chapter and we were talking about it, and I explained how much of a breakthrough that writing it had been. My dissertation traced the trajectory of Victorian cultural attitudes toward theatrical women that culminated in the centrality of theater and actresses to the early 20th-century women's suffrage movement. It was not entirely clear at the outset, however, that I would find the tight links that would connect Victorian literary representations and Edwardian political activism. I explained to my husband that the Eliot chapter serves as a keystone because it demonstrates that the significance of actresses in Victorian culture sets the stage for the theatricality of the suffragettes. And my mouth dropped open, and I said, "That's it. That's my title: 'Setting the Stage.'" Remember that you're doing this for yourself. It was helpful for me to think of my dissertation in these terms: I'm never going to climb Everest, or run a marathon. But the dissertation is an adventure and a feat of endurance that provides a sense of accomplishment proportional to the struggle that it requires. In that sense, Sir Edmund Hillary's comment, "It's not the mountain we conquer, but ourselves," is an apt description of writing a dissertation. For me, it was a tranformative experience that required me to overcome fears and develop new abilities. At the end, and only at the end, did I realize how much I had learned. It was far harder but also far more rewarding than I had ever thought it would be, and among its greatest rewards were the things that it taught me about myself and about how I work and think. -----------------------------------------------------------------------Renata Kobetts Miller earned her Ph.D. in English from Indiana University in Bloomington in 2001. Following a postdoctoral fellowship at the City College of the City University of New York, she joined the faculty as an assistant professor.

Common Writing Problems and Stylistic Suggestions

(UCI/UCLA Writing Style Guide)

This guide is designed to help you improve your writing in the social sciences. Developing your style requires you to make choices about how to communicate your ideas. Your readers are looking for well reasoned and supported ideas that increase their understanding or help them develop new insights. A style guide, unlike a grammar guide, will not tell you the right and wrong way to write. The goal is to encourage you to reflect on the choices you make in writing and provide some clues to how you can improve your writing. You have to make the decisions. There is a short annotated bibliography of print and online resources at the end of this document to provide a wider context for the development of your writing. I. Sharing your ideas Social science writing is a sharing of ideas, not necessarily your person. It is often best to place yourself in the background. Consider this suggestion from Strunk & White (1979, p. 70). "Write in a way that draws the readers attention to the sense and substance of the writing, rather than to the mood and temper of the author." Your paper is your ideas. You signal this by putting your name at the top. The goal is to share your ideas without necessarily including aspects of your personality. Consider: A. As a leader in school change, I know that it is important to reward teachers who work to change the school. B. Recognition and rewards for good teaching are central factors in implementing school reform (references to school programs or research that documents a relationship between merit pay or recognition programs and school change) The first sentence focuses on the person and his or her leadership role. The second is a statement about a relationship between a practice and an outcome. "I" statements can be good for conflict resolution but generally are less effective in academic writing. When you are describing actions you took in designing a research study or a case study in which you played a role, it makes sense to use first person. However, when you are discussing your ideas, you can make the focus on ideas stronger by making the idea the subject of the sentence.

As the author of the paper, it is clear that the ideas and observations you describe are your ideas. Rather then begin with "I think that..." consider beginning the sentence with your idea, and then ending with supporting evidence. II. Avoid Empty Sentences Your reader will be grateful for concise, clear statements of your ideas. No one wants to spend time reading sentences that do not add to the content. Consider the following pairs of empty and content-rich sentences: A. (Empty) There are many papers that have been written on plans to reform schools. B. (Content) Many educational reformers detail systemic and comprehensive plans to reform schools (Stringfield, Ross, & Smith, 1997). A. (Empty) Equity is an important issue. B. (Content) Equity is central because unless we find a way to address the learning needs of all children, our democracy is "at risk" along with our neglected learners. A. (Empty) We can always do better! B. (Content) Innovative models of school reform provide images of the many different strategies that can be used to invigorate schooling. A. (Empty) Implementing school reform is hard. B. (Content) Implementing school reform requires a high level of coordination among the staff of a school, and that is difficult to achieve. A. (Empty) The principal is important in school leadership. B. (Content) The principal leads the school community by providing a model of decisionmaking strategies. Hint: Search for sentences beginning with pronouns ("It is," "This will") and consider revising these sentences using a noun or noun phrase instead. Then transform empty sentences into content sentences by answering one or more of these questions: Who? What? When? Where? Why? or How?

III. Place Ideas in Context Academic writing is intended to contribute to a dialog or debate that builds the existing knowledge base. How do you contribute to this scholarly development and exchange of ideas? Consider the following three sentences, which bring in published research to support an idea. Each gives emphasis to a different aspect of the researchthe person who conducted the research, the published research itself, or ideas emanating from the research. 1. (Person) Bob Tinker (1997) demonstrates that integrating technology into the curriculum dramatically changes the roles of teachers and learners. 2. (Work) In Tinkers' (1997) insightful article, [name of article], he describes how integrating technology into the curriculum resulted in dramatic change to the roles of teachers and learners. 3. (Ideas) Integrating communication and information technology into the curriculum dramatically transforms the roles of teachers and learners (Tinker, 1997). In the first example, the writer is in the foreground and the idea is secondary. The second form highlights the work. In the final example, the idea is in the foreground, and the author and work move to the background. This third sentence, depending on the content, may imply that the writer shares this idea. All three of these examples are correct, but they serve different purposes. The third option allows for the development of ideas with less of a focus on people. It also makes it possible for you to state your own ideas supported with evidence from the writing of others. In a review of the literature, you need to decide when you want to emphasize the person, the work, or the idea; that decision should determine what the subject of your sentence will be. As you read journals, note the use and frequency of these different forms of documenting ideas. IV. Avoid Informal, Casual Language In a paper for a class, you might be tempted to write in an informal voice or phrase terms casually. Avoid these approaches. If you find this difficult in a specific instance, add comments in a footnote (cf. Strunk & White, 1979, p. 73, "Do not affect a breezy manner."). A. (Informal) Brain-based learningthe concept may be good, but what board of education would understand or support brain-based reform? B. (Formal) The reform strategies suggested by brain-based learning (Caine, Caine, & Crowell, 1997) indicate that teaching for meaning; relaxed alertness; the importance of complex, "rich" experiences; and ways to engage active processing may be considered important for school reform; but they are difficult to present in a clear and convincing way to a school board.

V. Consider Active Voice Since academic writing often takes the person out of the subject and focuses on ideas, there is often a natural tendency to write in the passive voice. The data were collected Learning has become They were not selected Centers were developed Concepts have been challenged In most cases, using subject-verb-object word order, with strong verbs, can make your writing more powerful. Most grammar checks will point out passive sentences and warn against overuse of the passive voice. Consider transforming theses sentences to the active voice. If you can make the sentence shorter and more direct without any loss of meaning, it will improve your style. For example: A. (passive) Teachers are described as facilitators of learning with three fundamental roles: teaching, advising, and participating in continuous improvement. B. (active) Teachers facilitate learning in three ways: teaching, advising and participating in continuous improvement. A. (passive) The article is presented in terms of what needs to be done or what would happen if "it" were done in a certain way. B. (active) The article presents a plan of action and the results of the implementation. VI. Ideas Need Framing It is fine to "freewrite" for a first draft of a paper, but the final copy needs to be carefully structured. There are different ways to structure papers depending on the content. A research paper has a very definite form that you can see in many journals. While some formats might be more detailed, the general structure for contributing new knowledge to the research community is: 1. Present your problem, issue or hypothesis 2. Describe the state of knowledge before your work 3. Describe your methods of research 4. Present your findingsthe new knowledge gained 5. Discuss the relationship of this new knowledge to what is known 6. Write your conclusions, including implications for educational policy and/or practice

Academic papers also can be reviews of literature, presentation of ideas or issues, comparisons of models, critiques of ideas or methods, and suggestions of solutions to problems. All academic papers need a structure. You might want to think of the structure as a framework, such as the following: 1. A clear introduction of the topic, problem, issue, or goal -examples, quotes, scenarios -contradictions -reasons for needing more information 2. A plan for organizing the discussion that is tied to the issues raised in the introduction 3. Detail support and development of the ideas following the plan described 4. An analysis of what is learned from placing all of the evidence or ideas into this framework or perspective 5. A tie back to the opening device (quote, story, example, etc.) with a new level of understanding. A well-written paper clearly raises an issue, presents a thorough and objective discussion of what is known about it, and provides some new way(s) of understanding the information. Multi-level headings can help you focus on the framework and provide guidance for your reader. VII. Outlining Some people work well using outlines. They will write an outline first and then fill out the topics. For others, writing is a way of developing ideas. In either case it is important to outline the ideas before a paper is finished. This will help you review the structure and make changes to it, if necessary. In some cases, the end of the paper helps inform the beginning. VIII. REWRITE Very rarely does one write a first and final draft. Typically, the more you work on a paper the better it becomes. The best way to develop your writing style is to write often, edit your work carefully, rewrite to achieve quality, ask for feedback, and keep writing. Finally, consider this advice from an old sage: The conditions to be fulfilled are these. First, you must know the truth about the subject that you speak or write about; that is to say, you must be able to isolate it in definition, and having so defined it you must next understand how to divide it into kinds, until you reach the limit of division; secondly, you must have a corresponding discernment of the nature of the soul, discover the type of speech

appropriate to each nature, and order and arrange you discourse accordingly, addressing a variegated soul in a variegated style that ranges over the whole gamut of tones, and a simple soul in a simple style. All this must be done if you are to become competent, within human limits, as a scientific practitioner of speech, whether you propose to expound or to persuade. Such is the clear purport of all our foregoing discussion. These are words attributed to Socrates by Plato in his dialogue, Phaedrus, 277b-c (c. 378-368 BC). Plato is one of the clearest thinkers and lucid stylists the Western world has ever known. References Alley, M. (1996). The craft of scientific writing. New York, NY: Springer. Michael Alley has developed online sets of tutorials to expand on the issues covered in his book. The exercises can be done with or without reading the book. Becker, H.S. (1986). Writing for social scientists. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. With wit and humor, Howard Becker urges social scientists to write simply and clearly, and gives suggestions for accomplishing this. One dominant theme: do not try to hide unclear thoughts in social science jargon. Hansen, R.S. (19__). Writing your way to a higher GPA. (http://www.enhancemywriting.com/). This is another book that has a web site. The site has the most extensive links to other web resources for writing. The Online Writery--A conversation Coffeehouse for writers (http://www.missouri.edu/~writery/) is definitely worth a visit. It has a newsletter and provides a great deal of advice on grammar and style (see sections by Jack Lynch) as well as online links to other resources. Strunk, W. and White, E. B. (1979). The Elements of Style. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Advice from Strunk has been a standard for many generations of writers. In this version, pages 66-85 deal with issues of style and are well worth reading University Online Writing lab (OWL) (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/) is a great source of information on grammar and style. The handouts are available online and the Online Writing Labs have been created at many other universities.

Candidacy

Preparation for Advancement to Candidacy Examination (Dissertation Proposal Defense)

The following are the steps that should be followed in preparing for the Dissertation Proposal Defense (Advancement to Candidacy). This document (2008 version) is revised yearly.

Date

Task 1. The student and the Chair review the Dissertation Information Session Video on the program website and the Dissertation Manual. 2. Student and Co-director submit Candidacy Committee Request Form to Program Coordinator. 3. Student's Candidacy Committee is approved by UCI Graduate Studies. 4. Student meets/has met with UCI Primary Reader to review the dissertation proposal at least once before Candidacy Committee examination is scheduled. 5. Program Coordinator completes grad check of transcript with UCI Graduate Studies. CoDirector and student are notified of any missing grades or other irregularities on the UCI transcript. 6. The Chair and the UCI Primary Reader co-determine that the student's proposal is ready to go before committee. 7. The Chair calls for committee review by sending an email to the committee members, with copy to the CSU Co-director and to the Program Coordinator, suggesting a series of dates and 2-hour time blocks for the meeting. (Note: it is normal that committee scheduling can take two to three weeks to confirm. Please be patient with busy faculty calendars.) 8. Each committee member is given a copy of the proposal. Generally, committee members are given at least three (3) weeks to review the proposal. 9. Committee members communicate their availability. Some may need to participate by telephone or Polycom connection. 10. The date/time is confirmed and notification of date and time with room location, directions, and parking information is sent to all members, to the Co-director, and to the Program Coordinator. 11. Student prepares a 20-30 minute proposal presentation that includes a) topic and its significance, b) review of literature, c) questions/hypotheses to be explored and their significance, d) data collection procedures, e) data analysis methods, f) anticipated contribution to the field, and g) anticipated timeline for completion. 12. Public notice of the defense is posted at the CSU and UC Irvine campuses a minimum of five working days in advance of the scheduled defense. 13. The committee meeting takes place at the CSU. The room should be capable of being secured so that there are no interruptions. Windows to the hallway should be covered. A sign should be posted on the door advising against ingress or egress by unauthorized persons. The exam process is protected by the outside member, who ensures that the student is given a fair examination. The room should be equipped with a telephone connection to accommodate any members who will be participating by telephone. The student should plan with the Chair for any needs for PowerPoint, overheads projector, computer, or video equipment. Copies of PowerPoint presentations or other supporting visuals that will be used during the defense must be sent in advance to committee members participating from remote location. 14. Very Important: the Ph.D. Form I is prepared in advance of the meeting. Information to be completed prior to the meeting includes the student information on page 1, the committee member names and academic units (CSU, UCI, or other) on page 1, the student and advisor signature on page 2, and the student and advisor signature on page 3 (Conflict of Interest).

This can be coordinated either by the Chair or the student, who subsequently will deliver the document to the Chair. The prepared Ph.D. Form I is brought by the Chair or the student to the meeting for committee member signatures (a copy of the Ph.D. Form I is included in the dissertation manual; this also can be accessed online at the UCI website under graduate forms-see information in dissertation manual). 15. It is recommended that the student arrange to audiotape or videotape his/her presentation and the open committee discussion in order to have an accurate record of the committee recommendations. The taping should cease during the private committee deliberations when the student and guests have left the room. The final changes/MOU/decision may be recorded when the student re-enters the room. 16. The following are options for committee decision: Pass with no revisions requested (unusual) Pass subject to completion of revisions - approval of revisions delegated to Chair Pass subject to completion of revisions - approval by all or some committee members Written MOU required pass with approval of MOU & revisions No Pass (highly unusual) 17. Passing with no revisions or minimal revisions: Committee members sign the Ph.D. Form I at the conclusion of the defense. Committee members not present to sign (i.e., participating by telephone or Polycom) should receive the form for signature by FedEx or Express Mail (return envelope included) following the meeting. Passing with written MOU required: student revises the proposal as needed and resubmits revisions to committee members. The Chair holds the completed Ph.D. Form I until conditions of the MOU are met. The student cannot advance to candidacy until a) all committee members approve the requested revisions, b) all committee members sign the Form, and c) the Chair releases the paperwork. No Pass: the student prepares a new dissertation proposal. A new committee is convened, and the student retakes the Candidacy Examination within three months of the first examination. 18. Upon the students successful completion of the Candidacy Examination, the Chair sends Ph.D. Form I with all five signatures to the Program Coordinator at UCI. 19. The Ph.D. Form I is signed by the UCI Department Chair or Graduate Advisor. 20. The student is notified to pick up the form and take it to the UCI Cashier to pay $65 (payable to UC Regents) and then to UCI Graduate Division for recording. 21. Submission of the Ph.D. Form I to Graduate Division, payment of the $65 fee, and completion of course work with all grades recorded on the UCI transcript allows Advancement to Candidacy and subsequent awarding of the dissertation research fellowship. 22. The outside member does not continue for the Dissertation Defense; the other four members continue and become the Dissertation Committee. 23. Important: the student must pay close attention to filing deadlines published by UCI Office of Graduate Studies. See Dissertation Manual: Timelines for 2008-2009 deadlines. Up-to-date graduate student deadlines information can be accessed at www.rgs.uci.edu/grad/students/ forms/filing_deadlines.pdf

D ISSE RTA TIO N D E FE NSE T I MELI NE P LA NNI NG D O CU ME NT

Activity Proposal Completed Graduation Requirement Check w/Co-director Committee Selected/Approved by UCI OGS Chair and UCI Primary Approve Sending Dissertation Forward to Committee Ph.D. Form I Prepared/ Sign Conflict of Interest p.3 Proposal Defense Advancement to Candidacy IRB Submission IRB Amendments (if necessary) IRB Approval Granted Data Collection Initiated Data Collection Completed Data Analysis Write Dissertation Chapter I:
Introduction FO R

S TU DE NT U SE

Proposed Completion Notes Date Date

Write Dissertation Chapter 2:

Conceptual Framework

Write Dissertation Chapter 3:

Methodology

Write Dissertation Chapter 4: Findings Write Dissertation Chapter 5:

Discussion

Submit First Draft of Dissertation to Advisor Submit Revised Draft to UCI Primary Reader Upon Approval of Chair and Primary Reader, Submit Final Draft of Dissertation to Committee Visit Library Archives to Approve Format, etc. Defend Dissertation (Dissertation Defense) Submit Final Ph.D. Form II, Signature Page, Dissertation to Library Archives Order Dissertation Copies for CSU & UCI Libraries Checkout: See Co-director & Program Coordinator Verify Diploma Name, Address w/Registrars Submit Graduation/Commencement Forms Graduate

CSU/UCI Joint Ed.D. in Educational Administration and Leadership

Candidacy Committee Request Form

Note: To be updated quarterly beginning Winter quarter of Year 2, until complete committee is formed and approved. Submit copies of completed forms to the CSU Program Co-Director and to the UCI Program Coordinator.

Date: ________________ Doctoral Students Name: ________________________________________________________________ CSU Affiliation: _________________________________________ Cohort Number: _____________ Provisional Title of Dissertation: __________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Candidacy Committee CSU Committee Chair: ________________________________________________________________________ Note: Assignment of the CSU Committee Chair should be complete by Winter Quarter of Year 2. Faculty member has agreed to serve. Approximate Date: ____________________________________ Faculty member has not yet agreed to serve, but we have discussed this possibility. I have not discussed service with this faculty member, but he/she is my first choice UCI Primary Reader: __________________________________________________________________________ Note: The UCI Primary Faculty Member is normally assigned by Spring Quarter of Year 2. Faculty member has agreed to serve. Approximate Date: ____________________________________ Faculty member has not yet agreed to serve, but we have discussed this possibility. I have not discussed service with this faculty member, but he/she is my first choice o Alternative UCI Primary: ________________________________________________________ I am requesting that UCI assign a primary reader. CSU Secondary Reader: _______________________________________________________________________ Note: The CSU Secondary Faculty Member is normally assigned by Summer 3. Faculty member has agreed to serve. Approximate Date: ____________________________________ Faculty member has not yet agreed to serve, but we have discussed this possibility. I have not discussed service with this faculty member, but he/she is my first choice o Alternative CSU Secondary: _____________________________________________________ UCI Secondary Reader: _______________________________________________________________________ Note: The UCI Secondary Faculty Member is normally assigned by Summer 3. Faculty member has agreed to serve. Approximate Date: ___________________ Faculty member has not yet agreed to serve, but we have discussed this possibility. I have not discussed service with this faculty member, but he/she is my first choice o Alternative UCI Secondary: _____________________________________________________ I am requesting that UCI assign a secondary reader. Outside Reader Request: ______________________________________________________________________ CSU Co-Director signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ______________ UCI Co-Director signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ______________

UCI Department Chair signature: ________________________________________ Date: ______________

Provisional Abstract of Dissertation Proposal (1-2 pages) Describe your current plans for your dissertation. The abstract should present the primary research question and why the question is significant. A general statement about the planned method should follow, and should include a description of the participants, instruments, research design, data collection, data analysis, and hypotheses, if relevant.

Candidacy Examination: Defense of Dissertation Proposal

General Procedures * The Candidacy Examination (oral qualifying examination) is the step within the Ed.D. program that results in advancing to candidacy. The examination covers the student's dissertation proposal. In advance of the Candidacy Examination, the student will send the dissertation proposal to the five Candidacy Committee members at least three weeks prior to the date of the exam.** The student should be prepared for the Candidacy Examination to be up to two hours in length. The components of the examination are listed below, although the order may depart from this on occasion. 1. Student summarizes and discusses dissertation proposal (approximately 20-30 minutes). The presentation should include: a. topic and its significance b. review of literature c. questions/hypotheses to be explored and their significance d. data collection procedures e. data analysis methods f. anticipated contribution to the field.

2. Student responds to questions from Committee members about dissertation proposal (45 minutes 1.5 hrs). 3. Student leaves the room while Committee discusses students performance (10-30 minutes). 4. Student returns and is given the Committees response. In some cases, student is asked to summarize changes to be made based on the Committees responses. The final vote and recommendation of the Committee must be unanimous. If the Committee votes to recommend candidacy, each member signs Ph.D. (Ed.D) Form I. On this form the Committee also indicates who will serve on the student's four-person Doctoral Committee. The student then pays the $65 Advancement to Candidacy Fee to the UC Irvine Cashier's Office, which validates the Ph.D. (Ed.D) Form I. This signed and validated form serves as the formal application, submitted by the student, for Advancement to Candidacy. The Office of Research and Graduate Studies, to which the form is submitted by the student, will notify the student of his or her formal Advancement to Candidacy. In the event that the Committee requires substantive changes to the dissertation proposal which it wishes to review, or for some other reason is not prepared to immediately recommend candidacy, the signatures will be postponed. The Committee may request changes in the proposal that it considers to be of a technical nature and which it does not deem necessary to review. The student may be asked to produce a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that incorporates a description of these revisions. Once the members of the Committee have accepted the student's MOU, the signatures are obtained. If there are more important, substantive, changes requested by the Committee, the student will be asked to modify the original proposal and submit it to the Committee members, and the Candidacy Examination will be reconvened to conclude the examination. This re-convening must occur within three months. If the Committee does not believe that even a revised proposal is likely to be acceptable, it may choose to fail the candidate. The candidate has three months from that point to produce a new dissertation proposal, convene a new committee, and re-take the Candidacy Examination. __________ * The precise form and content of each Candidacy Examination are determined by the students Candidacy Committee. ** Students should be advised that scheduling a day and time that meets the needs of five Committee members and the student could take up to two months.

Dissertation Proposal Outline

Each student and dissertation advisor will need to adapt this outline to the specific nature of the dissertation proposal being developed. This outline is designed as a reminder of key elements that are usually addressed in proposals. The dissertation proposal has been called the rock upon which you build your work (Kerchner, 1994, p. 5). In a very real sense once the proposal is approved it is like a contract between the degree candidate and the committee. Of course, the contract can be re-negotiated as circumstances in the research process warrant. I. II. Cover page following the format required for dissertations Introduction a. Background i. Statement of the problem b. The Study i. Very brief overview of the study (1 paragraph) ii. Research Questions (included hypotheses if necessary) c. Significance of the Research i. Who will benefit from the research (scholars, school district personnel, teachers, etc.) and how? (dont repeat the statement of the problemkeep it brief and to the point) d. Assumptions and Limitations [optional] e. Operational Definitions [optional] Conceptual Framework a. Introductory paragraph listing key concepts to be discussed b. Discussion of the literature related to the theoretical or conceptual framework c. Analysis of research studies and scholarly works related to the research proposed for the dissertation d. Summary of research to date and lead-in to your study Methodology a. Design description of the type of research to be conducted (exploratory, descriptive, experimental, etc.) methods that will be used i. Cite the literature supporting this design

III.

IV.

V.

VI. VII. VIII.

ii. Justify why this design is appropriate to address the research question(s) b. Sites/Participants/Subjects [for human subjects research; can be a single section or divided into two]]: i. Where will your study be held and who will be involved in it c. Sources of Data [qualitative] or Instruments [quantitative] i. Describe the data sources or instruments ii. Describe the methods to be used iii. Justify why they are appropriate to answer the research question(s) by citing the methodology literature iv. Discuss the feasibility of collecting the data using these methods v. Attach copies of proposed instruments or protocols d. Define the key types of data or variables and how they are operationalized (Kerchner, 1994, p. 7). [quantitative] e. Carefully outline the procedures that will be used to conduct the research including where appropriate the use of pilot studies, negotiation of access, and any special concerns with regard to the protection of human subjects [ordinarily for quantitative research; for qualitative research, may be integrated into one of the above sections] f. Data analysisdescribe in detail how and when the data will be analyzed. Include copies of proposed tables or charts. Justify the use of analytical methods as appropriate to address the research question by citing the research methodology literature. g. Credibility and Trustworthiness explain why your research is credible and trustworthy (triangulation, prolonged engagement, looking for disconfirming evidence, etc.), citing sources to justify your approach [qualitative research only] Timeline for completing the dissertation Present a timeline for each step in the process of completing your dissertation. Exactly how many days are planned for each step? It is your job to convince the committee that you can actually complete the research in the timeframe you outline. Consider whether you will have the resources (time, money, access to data, etc.) to complete the dissertation. Your committee will be investing significant time and effort in reviewing your work, you need to be convincing that your work is worthy of their attention and that you have the capacity to complete this scholarly undertaking. Dissertation Outline (Outline of dissertation chapters) References Appendices (e.g., proposed instruments or protocols)

De Vaney, A. (2004). Proposal sections for dissertation. Kerchner, C. T. (1994). Dissertation craftsmanship, Unpublished manuscript, Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University

Helpful Suggestions for the Proposal Defense

Prepare visual aides, bullet points, key tables, etc. to augment what you have already provided, and fax/e-mail to all committee members. If possible, arrange to rehearse your presentation before the program Coordinator and/or a faculty member (e.g., Advisor). Plan sufficient time between the rehearsal and your scheduled defense to allow for incorporating changes that may be suggested. Remember to be inclusive of remote participants during your presentation. Take good notes during the discussion. Bring a tape recorder or arrange for video taping if you would like a better record of the exam. Be prepared to discuss any points that may be questioned, e.g. related to conceptual framework, methodology, etc. Plan to summarize changes to be made in the proposal defense, questions, suggestions, requests, etc. Do not be concerned if your committee takes considerable time during the closed discussion to reach a decision. There is no relationship between the length of time taken and the outcome. It may be that the committee is so engaged in discussing your proposed research that they forget to watch the time. Remember that the Proposal Defense is a working session. Five scholars will be focusing upon your proposal to help you develop a high quality dissertation.

ANNOUNCEMENT
The proposal defense of Student X will be held Day, Date, Year at Time a.m., in Room, Building, Campus. Student Xs dissertation is entitled, "Title." The committee members are: __________, Chair __________, CSU Reader __________, UCI Primary Reader __________, UCI Reader __________, Outside Member To attend, please contact:

Name Title Telephone

Due to space limitations, RSVP is required

CSU/UCI Joint Ed.D. in Educational Administration and Leadership California State University, Fullerton, California State University, Long Beach California State University, Los Angeles, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona University of California, Irvine

Date Student Name Education

By the authority of the Graduate Council, at the University of California, Irvine, First Middle Last Name is advanced to candidacy for the Doctor of Education in Educational Administration and Leadership, and the following are appointed as the doctoral committee to guide the dissertation: Name (CSU Campus), Chair Name (CSU Campus) Name Name

Carolyn Boyd Dean of Graduate Studies Advancement of Candidacy Confirmed: Quarter/Year on Month Day, Year cc: Educational Administration and Leadership

Effective February 1, 2006 all investigators submitting new applications to the IRB must:
1. Submit electronically to the IRB via the e-IRBAPP module. 2. Use the revised protocol narrative (11-05 version) when submitting an e-IRBAPP. Older versions of the protocol narrative are no longer accepted. 3. Write new consent and assent forms in the 2nd person. New consent forms should include all applicable template language and follow the layout found on the revised consent form templates. The consent form templates are tailored to biomedical and social behavioral research. A study information sheet template is also available. The study information sheet may be used for social-behavioral type research (Exempt and Expedited level research) where signed informed consent is not necessary. It is recommended that investigators allow for additional time to complete the e-IRBAPP and revised narrative. The e-IRBAPP process elicits more regulatory information up front to decrease the back and forth correspondence between the IRB and the investigator. It is also anticipated that the submission to IRB approval timeframe will be reduced with the new application. The new electronic IRB Application module, the revised protocol narrative, and consent templates can be accessed on our Human Research Protections Application and Forms webpage: http://www.rgs.uci.edu/ora/forms/irb. You can also go directly to the e-IRBAPP by clicking:

http://www.rgs.uci.edu/hs/e-irbapp.

NEW E-IRBAPP HARD COPY SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: 1. Investigators are required to submit just one original electronic IRB Application signed by the Lead Researcher and Department Chair (also the Faculty Sponsor, when applicable). Copies of the protocol narrative and consent/assent forms are no longer required. 2. For clinical investigations, investigators are required to submit four copies of the Sponsor's Protocol and the Investigator's Brochure. 3. For studies with additional required documentation not uploaded and submitted via the e-IRBAPP process (e.g., survey packets, interview schedules, and permission letters), investigators are required to submit four copies of these materials. The original electronic IRB application with signatures and any additional required hard copy documentation must be received by ORA before IRB review will begin. For Full Committee applications, all hard copies and signatures must be received in ORA no later then 5 pm of the meeting deadline. Alisa Irwin Director, Research Protections UCI Office of Research Administration 949-824-7735 alisa.irwin@uci.edu

Human Subjects Research Institutional Review Board Approval

In compliance with federal regulations, all research that involves contact with human subjects must be approved by an Institutional Review Board. In the Joint Ed.D. program, the review process is conducted by the review board at UCI:

http://www.rgs.uci.edu/ora/rp/hrpp/
CSU/UCI Joint Ed.D. submissions to the UCI IRB must be accompanied by a completed Confirmation of Collaborative Agreement between UCI and CSU Faculty (see next page for form). Once approval is granted by the UCI IRB, the doctoral student must deliver a copy of the fully approved document from UCI to the Institutional Review Board at the CSU emphasis campus and to the Emphasis Co-director. IMPORTANT: If the research involves human subjects on the CSU campus, then the application for approval must also be presented to the review board at the CSU. Normally, this will be done by the CSU Co-director. If the CSU IRB reviews the proposal and requires modification, the approved modified documents must be resubmitted to the UCI IRB. It is the doctoral student's responsibility to provide the final UCI IRB approved documents to the Co-director.

CSU/UCI Joint Ed.D. in Educational Administration and Leadership

Confirmation of Collaborative Agreement between UCI and CSU Faculty Lead Researcher Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________________ UCI IRB HS # _______________________________________________ CSU Faculty Sponsor: _________________________________________ UCI Sponsoring Faculty Member: ________________________________ SIGNATURES BELOW CONFIRM: The CSU/UCI Joint Ed.D. in Educational Administration and Leadership is a joint partnership among UC Irvine and the California State Universities at Fullerton, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Pomona. The attached IRB Authorization Agreement describes the IRB responsibilities of UCI and the participating CSU campus as negotiated among the collaborating campuses. Under the provisions of the Approved Proposal for a Joint Program of Graduate Study Leading to the Doctor of Education Degree in Educational Administration and Leadership dated October 15, 2003 and the draft MOU/BYLAWS dated April 19, 2004, dissertation committees will be chaired by a member of the CSU tenured faculty, and CSU faculty will have primary responsibility for overseeing the candidates dissertation research. In keeping with these provisions, the CSU faculty sponsor named above has critically reviewed the above-named students attached Application for IRB Review, has authorized this students research, and will directly supervise this research under the IRB Authorization Agreements negotiated between UCI and each of the four CSU campuses. The UCI faculty member signing below agrees to sponsor this research under the provisions of and in compliance with the regulations of the UC Irvine IRB and acknowledges that this research will be conducted under the immediate supervision of the CSU faculty sponsor. ______________________________________________
CSU Faculty Sponsor

_____________________
Date

______________________________________________
CSU Co-director

_____________________
Date

______________________________________________
UCI Sponsoring Faculty Member

_____________________
Date

California State University, Fullerton California State University, Long Beach California State University, Los Angeles California State Polytechnic University, Pomona University of California, Irvine

CSU/UCI Joint Ed.D. Recommendations for Preparing and Submitting IRB Application
1. Student emails Dr. Kim Pierce, Director of the Center for Research in Education in the Department of Education at UC Irvine, to request a telephone appointment to discuss proposed research (kmpierce@uci.edu). 2. Student talks with Dr. Pierce. Dr. Pierce provides an approved IRB submission for the student to review and follow. 3. Student prepares IRB Electronic Submission online but does not submit (http://www.rgs.uci.edu/ora/forms/irb.htm). Student makes an electronic copy of the eapplication, the protocol narrative and, if applicable, the consent form, and emails the documents to CSU Dissertation Chair. 2. Student downloads from CSU/UCI program website and signs copy of Confirmation of Collaborative Agreement between UCI and CSU Faculty and forwards to CSU Co-director for signature and for subsequent mailing to Program Coordinator (UCI DOE, ATT: Nancy Christensen, 2001 Berkeley Place, Irvine, California, 92697-5500). Student includes stamped envelope addressed to UCI for Co-director mailing. (Location of CSU/UCI Collaborative IRB Faculty Agreement url: http://www.gse.uci.edu/csu-uci-edd/PA_forms.php) If a CSU professor is supervising the research and designated as faculty sponsor, UCI IRB requires that a professor from UCI also be designated as a faculty sponsor. The reason for this is that UCI IRB does not have recourse to a CSU faculty member, only to UCI faculty members. Generally, the UCI Primary Reader should sign as UCI faculty sponsor. If the UCI Primary Reader does not sign, Michael Martinez will sign as the faculty sponsor. The Confirmation of Collaborative Agreement between UCI and CSU Faculty confirms that the student's research will be carried out under direct supervision from the CSU professor (Chair) but that the UCI professor (Primary Reader or Michael Martinez) has approved the research and is sponsoring the student's work. On the IRB submission documents, if the student has identified a CSU professor as involved in the research, then the CSU professor must have completed an IRB tutorial. UCI IRB honors proof of completion of the CSU tutorial. The CSU professor will be required to send proof of completion at CSU to UCI IRB. Otherwise, the CSU professor can log on and take the UCI IRB tutorial.

3. Student meets with Dissertation Chair to review proposed submission. Proposed submission is modified as needed. 4. Student submits electronic version of revised proposed submission to UCI Primary Reader for review. If no Primary Reader has been designated at this point, student sends the proposed submission to Michael Martinez (memartin@uci.edu), with student email and telephone contact information.

5. UCI Primary Reader reviews proposed submission. Options for Primary Reader response include: Response A. UCI Primary returns comments to student and recommends modifications. Student includes CSU Chair in revision process and review. Upon completion, student emails or delivers the revised proposal to DOE Reviewer Kim Pierce (kmpierce@uci.edu) or Response B. UCI Primary approves proposed submission as written and notifies student. Student emails or delivers proposed submission to DOE Reviewer, Kim Pierce (kmpierce@uci.edu). 6. Dr. Pierce reviews the proposed submission and communicates with student as needed. Upon completion of recommended revisions, if any, Dr. Pierce approves students forwarding electronic submission to ORA. 7. Student submits electronic application to ORA. 8. If not already forwarded, student signs and sends the entire hard copy of the IRB application to UCI, ATT: Dr. Pierce. 9. Dr. Pierce forwards hard copy of signature portion to UCI Faculty Sponsor (UCI Primary Reader or Michael Martinez) and DOE Chair Deborah Lowe Vandell for signatures. 10. Chair or sponsor returns signed IRB signature portion to Program Coordinator. Coordinator makes copies and mails or delivers original(s) to ORA, University Tower, 4199 Campus Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA, 92697-7600, along with signed CSU/UCI IRB Collaborative Agreement. A copy is sent to the student. A copy is retained in the students DOE file. 11. ORA notifies student of receipt of materials and of review committee action. (ORA telephone: (949) 824-4768; fax: (949) 824-1465).

Primary Role of CSU Dissertation Chair and UCI Primary Reader: review protocol narrative to ensure the proposed research is consistent with the dissertation proposal and accurately reflects the approved dissertation proposal Primary Role of UCI Director of Research: review proposed submission to ensure conformity with IRB standards

Final Defense

Final Dissertation Defense: General Guidelines

The Dissertation defense is typically conducted within a two-hour time period. Approximately the first half hour is devoted to the presentation of the Dissertation by the candidate. Another hour or so is for questions from the Committee members. The remaining half hour is time in which the Committee discusses its recommendation(s) and communicates them to the Candidate. 1. Presentation of Dissertation by Candidate: Thirty (30) Minutes The Candidate is expected to provide a concise description of the Dissertation. In doing so, the Candidate is expected to describe: a. b. c. d. The problem examined and its importance The research methodology (e.g., sample, data collection, data analysis) The findings of the study Study conclusions and implications

2. Questions Asked by Dissertation Committee Members: One (1) Hour Dissertation Committee Members ask the Candidate questions that they consider warrant discussion with the Candidate prior to approval of the Dissertation. These questions may pertain to such matters as why particular approaches were or were not taken by the Candidate, the meaning of the data contained in the Dissertation, or the relationship of the Dissertation findings to other studies. 3. Concluding Statement by Candidate: Ten (10) Minutes During this period, the Candidate may be asked to make concluding comments. This is an opportunity for the Candidate to clarify unresolved issues. The Candidate may wish to return to specific questions asked by Committee members if he or she has more information to add. In addition, the concluding statement might address areas for future research. As applicable, this might relate to both (a) further analyses to address issues raised by the Committee and (b) additional questions for study that derive from the Dissertation research and which the Candidate considers important. Finally, the Candidate should end with a brief concluding statement. It should summarize the significance of the dissertation in terms of the contribution it makes to the area of study. 4. Discussion by Dissertation Committee Members (20 Minutes) Committee Members discuss the Candidate's Dissertation and defense of it and will vote on whether to (a) approve it, (b) approve it with minor modifications, or (c) request additional work on it. Approval of the Dissertation (a or b) requires a unanimous vote of the four Committee Members. In the event that additional work is needed, an MOU or similar written agreement should be considered. The Committee's decision will be communicated immediately to the Candidate.

___________________________________________________________

TO: UCI Grad Students Finishing Up

______________________________________________________

Thesis/Dissertation Preparation Information Session

Day, Month Date Time Location Langson Library _______________________________________________________ If you are a graduate student who is close to filing your thesis/dissertation paperwork, then you are invited and encouraged to attend our quarterly Thesis/Dissertation Preparation Information Session arranged by the Office of Research & Graduate Studies and the University Archives. During this workshop, students will view an overhead presentation on how to file their thesis/dissertation, the sequence order of your manuscript, the paperwork required, and other important information to help facilitate this aspect of your graduate career. Remember that the final submission deadline for a [Quarter] degree is [Month Date, Year]. OGS has introduced a new website, "Satisfying Degree Requirements," to help graduate students learn what steps to take to ensure that they graduate in a timely manner. The site includes extensive information about satisfying degree requirements (advancement to candidacy, registration, deadlines, etc.), and is available at <http://www.rgs.uci.edu/grad/students/degree_req.htm>http://www.rgs.uci.edu/grad/students/deg ree_req.htm RSVP is not necessary to attend this workshop. Should you have questions regarding this particular session, please contact: Andrea Anderson (<mailto: alanders@uci.edu) Office of Graduate Studies We look forward to seeing you there.

NOTICE TO STUDENTS PREPARING FINAL DISSERTATIONS:

Prior to printing your dissertations on the special (high quality 100% cotton, 20 lb. weight, watermarked) paper, please bring a copy of your nearly final dissertation on regular paper to: The UCI Main Library, Special Collections and Archives, located on the 5th floor, so they can evaluate and verify that the preliminary pages are formatted correctly. Hours are from 10am-6pm Monday through Friday. Please contact Andrew Jones (949) 824-7227. This service is available to help reduce your expenses, avoid delays in granting your degree and expedite publication of your dissertation. For up- to-date information, visit the Library Archives web site at:
www.lib.uci.edu/libraries/collections/special/thesis/tdmanual.html

Commencement Release Form Deadline April 30, 2008

For students whose degrees will be completed by the end of summer or fall quarter, 2008. ( http://www.rgs.uci.edu/grad/students/Commencement_Release_Fall_2008.pdf) If you have not completed your degree requirements by the day of commencement but anticipate completing them at the end of summer or fall quarter 2008 (by December 5, 2008 at the latest) you will need certification to participate in the Graduate Commencement Ceremony on June 7, 2008.
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE: STUDENT I.D. # ______________________________ NAME ________________________________________

E-MAIL ADDRESS ____________________________ PHONE __________________________

GRADUATE PROGRAM ___________________________________ DEGREE OBJECTIVE ________________

This is to certify that ________________________________ will have completed all requirements for the PhD or masters degree by December 5, 2008. I recommend that he/she be allowed to participate in the ceremony on June 7.
Student Name (Please Print)

Signature of Dissertation/Thesis Adviser for doctoral or masters students OR signature of Graduate Adviser for masters examination students _________________________________________________________ Print Adviser Name

DATE

Signature of Graduate Program Adviser/Chair _________________________________________________________ Print Graduate Program Adviser/Chair Name

DATE

Submit completed form by April 30, 2008 to Graduate Division 120 Aldrich Hall Zot Code 3180 Attn: Susan Bertram If you have questions or need additional information, please contact the Graduate Division at gradcomm@uci.edu or 949-824-0373.

CSU Campus Dissertation Requirements for CSU/UCI Students

One or more copies or your bound dissertation must be filed and housed at your CSU emphasis campus (library and possibly department). Please consult with your Emphasis Co-director for details.

CSU/UCI Joint Ed.D. in Educational Administration and Leadership California State University, Fullerton, California State University, Long Beach California State University, Los Angeles, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona University of California, Irvine

Final Steps
Once you have fulfilled graduation requirements and defended the final dissertation, keep the following items in mind as you end your student status with UC Irvine and DOE. (Also verify with your CSU home campus to ensure that all CSU campus requirements have been met.) 1. File your dissertation with Langson Library archives including Ph.D. Form II with all signatures. Remember to also bring signed copies of the dissertation cover page, all on the appropriate bond paper. Please order one bound dissertation for the Ed.D. Library so that we can build our resources and remember your contribution. It is customary, but not required, to order a copy for your dissertation chair. Return all library books and journals. Return your Ed.D. Library Key: Room 2005 Berkeley Place. This is the #64 key. Failure to return the key will result in an invoice to replace the key. Do a final check of your mailbox. End your parking permit with Parking and Transportation Services if applicable. End any Direct Deposit arrangements with Financial Services. Verify that all fellowship funds have been received and deposited. Be certain to update your name and address BOTH with the UCI. Registrar (can be done online at www.rgs.uci.edu) and with the Program Coordinator. As changes occur, report updates in employment, name, address, phone, and email to Program Coordinator. We track graduate accomplishments; and we maintain graduate mailing lists for events, colloquia, employment opportunities, networking, etc. Please also report research articles published, conferences where you presented, and other related accolades and achievements. Prior to graduation, verify that your name is listed with the UCI Registrar, as you would like it to appear on your diploma. Make arrangements for graduation paperwork, including tickets to graduation for yourself and guests. Ensure that diploma and commencement forms, certification letter, etc. are submitted to appropriate entities. Check http://www.commencement.uci.edu/. Also communicate with your Program Coordinator for details. This ones for you. Congratulations on reaching this step!

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

11.