A doctoral dissertation

tutorial

Faculty of Economics, University of Rijeka

Prof.dr. Vesna abkar

The dinner-party test

Be able to explain your PhD thesis topic
In 2-3 minutes
In simple words
To someone without previous knowledge on the
topic

Doctoral ideal

Nothing was ever yet done that someone was not

the first to do
John Stuart Mill

Each doctoral dissertation or thesis is to a large

extent sui generis.

Learning the craft of:

how to plan,
draft,

write,
develop,
revise and
rethink a thesis, and
to finish it on time and
to the standard required

Completing
a doctoral
dissertation
is:

A personal
and subtle
process,

Dependent
upon
students
and
supervisors
or advisers,

Variable
across
thesis
topics,
disciplines
and
university
contexts.

Development of research competences

Deep
understanding
of research

Writing and
publishing
skills

Theory
building
and testing
capacity

1. FOUNDATION
2. ANALYSIS OF LITERATURE
3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
4. THEORY, HYPOTHESES

5. RESEARCH CONCEPTUALIZATION,
RESEARCH MODEL

Learnability

Noogenesis of intellect
EVALUATION OF KNOWLEDGE:
overgrowth of knowledge source

Ontogenesis
of intellect STUDYING: personalizing and deepening of
knowledge

sociogenesis
of intellect IMITATIVE LEARNING: source of knowledge level

Definition of science
Intellectual activity, which leads to a fully-related knowledge
about the world that has general application.
Scientific assumptions:
Humans are rational.
The world is comprehensible.
The world is governed.
Nature is both diverse and unique.
The reality is not shown directly.

The basic principles of science

Definition

Opposite

OBJECTIVITY

Objectivity
integrity

Bias, partiality

VERIFIABILITY

Self-criticism,
doubt

Obstruction of
criticism,
dogmatisms

ACCURACY

Precisions and
distinction

Unjustified
generalization,
superficiality

SYSTEMATICS

Relationships
and noncontradictory

No
relationships,
contradictions

The basic principles of science

Definition

Opposite

ORIGINALITY

Search for new

knowledge

Repetition of
authorities

GENERALIZABILITY

Search the
generally
applicable
knowledge

Finding unique
sensations

PUBLIC
PURPOSE

In public
service

In service of
personal
interests

ETHICAL

Ethics above
the scientific
interest

Subordination of
ethics to
research
interests

Classification of science
SCIENCE

NATURAL

NOMOTHETIC
General
principles

SOCIAL

HUMANITIES

IDIOGRAPHIC
Individual
cases

METHOD:

METHOD:

analysis

synthesis

Scientific tasks
Defining concepts
Explaining, interpreting concepts
Placing assumptions
Observation
Measurement
Data extraction
Analysis of data
Determination of relationships
Categorization
Experimentation
Prediction of events
Hypothesis testing

2. Literature review
Framing your own view while grounding your work in an
established academic tradition and some part of the
contemporary discourse of your discipline
Dangers for PhD students:
1. overly derivative from the existing literature
2. overclaiming about the novelty or value of contribution

Avoiding derivative literature review

Systematic documentation and bibliographic search at the
outset of any PhD in comprehensive way:
Web systems and computerized bibliographic
Electronic journal archives
Possible rival PhDs already ongoing
Your best for originality lies in a distinctive and
personalized framing of your thesis question and
approach!

Avoiding overclaiming novelity

Academic readers are resistant to:
neologisms (the invention of new terms and
vocabulary).
interpreting established terms with a different meaning
from those already in use
Introduction of novel conceptual frameworks or
algebra or diagrams, unless these strategies seem to
add significantly to your analysis.
Avoid:
denying any influence from earlier work in your
discipline,
insisting that common ideas already have originated or
re-originated with you.

Literature review doing right

Any new work rests on an accumulation of previous and
current literature
The value added: keeping a critical eye on the
transformation and enhancement or differentiation to
the starting materials of analysis (clearly labelled
schools of thought, merits or insights and limitations)

Scope of academic streams/viewpoints

The nature of academic debates: complete closure
of many controversies is unlikely.

Mainstream viewpoint - controls the intellectual

commanding heights, the councils of professional
bodies and the editorial control of the (most) prestigious
journals.
One or more insurgent critical views new or
previously minority positions
Legacy views - critical of the orthodoxy as well, older
positions now displaced by the conventional wisdom

Generating knowledge
Body of available knowledge - hypotheses - evidence - new
body of knowledge

1. Replication - goal reliability of results

2. Evaluation of competing models - goal robustness of

results

3. Meta - analysis - goal: generalization of results

3. Research problem
What is a problem worth writing about?
Certain books seem to have been written, not in order to
afford us any instruction, but merely for the purpose of
letting us know that their authors knew something.
Johanne Wolfgang von Goethe

Developing new ideas

There is nothing so easy as what was discovered
yesterday, nor so difficult as what will be discovered
tomorrow.
Jean-Baptiste Biot
You have learnt something. That always feels at first as if
you had lost something.
George Bernard Shaw
One does not set out in search of new lands without being
willing to be alone on an empty sea.
Andr Gide

The best way to get a good idea is to get a lot of ideas.

Linus Pauling
Creative research is a problem-generating activity. Problem
discovery cannot be a scheduled activity. It can happen
at any time.
Lewis Mink
In the field of observation, fortune favors only the prepared
mind.
Louis Pasteur

What is needed for a new idea

Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything.
Alexander Hamilton
1. A commitment to an intellectual approach, a particular
school of thought in your discipline, or a broad world
view - need to retain a capacity for relational argument
2. an empiricist or common sense view: there is no
worthwhile purely factual research

Stealing an idea?
Someone accused him of stealing an idea from another
composer and he shrugged and said, Yes, but what did
he do with it?
An anecdote about George Friedrich Handel, told by
Robertson Davies

Possible areas for research

(in ascending order of difficulty; non-exhaustive list)
Testing a known problem on new data or using new methodology

Applying an existing theory in a new setting

Exploring an uninhabited niche in literature
Filling a gap
Synthesis of existing theories
Critique of existing theory
Proposing a new theory

Originality
"A PhD needs to report the discovery of new facts or
display an exercise of independent critical power; or
both" (University of London)
New facts: empirical research
Independent critical power: significant theoretical and
thematic arguments
"Standing on the shoulders of giants" (Refer to existing
literature as much as possible)

Scientific contribution
. New insights
. Reconciliation of contradictory results
. Gaps in knowledge
. Theory boundary conditions

New knowledge

Existing knowledge

new theory to existing

knowledge
filling knowledge gaps
important antecedent
previously ignored
important consequence prev.
ignored
mediating variables previously
ignored

examine moderator effects

probing theory external
validity
testing theory assumptions
reconciliating contradictory
findings

Conceptual, empirical, methodological

contribution
CONCEPTUAL:
improved conceptual
definitions
concepts to be added to
conceptual framework
additional theoretical
linkages (hypotheses)
improved theoretical
rationale for existing
linkages

examining potential
moderator
determining degree of
mediation on two constructs
psychometric properties of
important scale

METHODOLOGICAL:
multiple methods of
measurement
generalizability through
EMPIRICAL:
sampling
testing theoretical linkages third variable explanation
not tested before
construct validity

Research significance

1. Substantive
domain (e.g.
retailing)

2. Conceptual
domain (= theory to
provide insights into
substantive issue)

3. Methodological
domain (= tools,
techniques,
theories)

Framing a problem components of an

intelectual problem
1. A goal or objective which can tell us how to judge
outcomes, how to see that an improvement has been
achieved.
2. An initial state, the starting situation and the resources
available to be used (the existing literature).
3. A set of operations that can be used to change the
initial state and resources (new data, a toolkit of
research methods)
4. Constraints (certain kinds of operations inadmissible)
5. An outcome.
(Robert Nozick)

4. Theory, sceintific method

Scientific triade the magic triangle

Experience
(research
question)

Theory

Method

Scientific theory
Broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena.
Concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, broadly
applicable.
Often integrate and generalize many hypotheses.
To be accepted needs to be supported by different lines
of evidence
Provides DESCRIPTION of relationships between
variables, enables PREDICTION of important outcomes,
allows EXPLANATION of why variables are related in
certain ways
(Ketchen, JAMS, 2011)

Examples of theories
General theories of marketing:
theories of Robert Bartels and Wroe Alderson
resource-based theory of competition (Hunt 2002)
service dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004)

Perhaps the complexity of marketing phenomenology and the

infancy of its theories are such that it behooves the discipline
to pursue a multi-tiered paradigmatic structure to its science.
(Achroll, Kotler, 2012)

Hypothesis
A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a
phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested.
For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific
method requires that one can test it.

Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous

observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with
the available scientific theories.

Hypotheses
Based on:
Prior experience
Scientific background knowledge
Preliminary observations
Logic
Supported by different lines of evidence
Have explanatory power for explaining phenomena,
WHY a phenomena occurs,
Should be testable

Hypothesis examples
Nonoperational:
H: Work of the club was successful.
Operational:
H1: In the last three years of the club was the number of
club members constantly increasing.
H2: The number of club activities increased in the last three
years of club functioning.

Example of hypothesis
Nonoperational:
Participation in the seminar benefited students.
Operational:
Students that participated in the seminar achieved
significantly higher score in a test on knowledge about
the subject than students that did not participate in the
seminar.

Weighting up alternative hypotheses

Testability
Parsimony - discouraging the postulation of excessive
numbers of entities)
Scope the apparent application of the hypothesis to
multiple cases of phenomena
Fruitfulness the prospect that a hypothesis may explain
further phenomena in the future
Conservatism the degree of "fit" with existing recognized
knowledge-systems.

Types of scientific methods

Research methods: how we do research (not
methodology = comparative study of methods)

The foundation for each scientific method is

observation and thinking
Analytical: from general to specific.
Synthetic: from specific to general.
Inductive: individual observations connected
into general judgments.
Deductive: general laws narrowed to specific cases.

Types of scientific methods

Comparative: based on comparison of similar phenomena
Descriptive: describing phenomena
Rational: to conclusions through thinking process
Empirical: to conclusions with observations,
self-observation and experiments

Types of scientific methods

Quantitative: results based on data.
Qualitative: holistic approach to problems in natural
environment, less control of external factors.
Observation, interviews, recording, analysis,
citing, descriptive statistics

Social sciences as sciences

NATURAL
SCIENCIES

POSITIVISM
Researching what
can be objectively
measured

HUMANITIES

INTERACTIONISM
Understanding
social interactions,
looking for reasons.

Quantitative methods

PHENOMENOLOGY
Learning about
subjective phenomena.

Qualitative methods

Number of characteristics (variables)

Strategy of selecting a method

large
Qualitative method

Comparative method

Quantitative method

small

number of units

large

5. Conceptualization of research,
research model
Residual uncertainty:
1. Clear enough future
Traditional strategy
tool kit
2. Alternative futures
Decision analysis,
game theory
3. A range of futures
Scenario planning
4. True ambiguity
Nonlinear dynamic
models, analogies

Source: Courtney, Kirkland, Viguerie, 1997

Linking CSR and willingness-to-pay:

Conceptual Framework
Corporate
Social
Responsibility

ConsumerCompany
Identification

Attitudes
Towards the
Company

Product
Quality

Willingness
to Pay

Models of PhD
Classical model

Big book thesis (up

to 100,000 words)

Only preliminary
training or
coursework

Taught PhD model

Papers model
dissertation

Course work assesed

by general
examination, second
stage is a dissertation

Big book or collection of papers

Affects the number of original ideas
One vs. several

Affects the structure

Not as much as some believe

Affects the length

Series of papers generally shorter

Starting with the answer

Easier said than done
A gradual process
On average 18-24 months

Needs quite some "guesstimating" predicting the answer

before beginning to collect data
Brainstorming
Notepad

Organizing ideas
On paper
Software (e.g. Evernote)

Present and discuss

The link between the RQ and structure

of dissertation the macro structure
"Big book" or papers?
The macro structure and rough proportions do not
change
Think chapters as papers or papers as chapters
Decide on rough target size
Big book: 60 000 to 80 000 words, up to 100 000 (200300 pages)
Papers: shorter, 40 000 60 000 words (150-200 pages)
Devide into chunks (chapters)
5-7 (papers), 8-10 (book)
8000 12000 words each

The macro structure

Lead-in materials
(1-2 chapters)
(Introduction, literature review)
CORE
(60% of the thesis)
(the added value:
- Methods
- Research report
- Results)
Lead-out materials
(Implications, conclusions)

Focus down model

Most common, supported by many advisors

Readers are tired before they get to the added value
Unnecessary, loss of time

Opening out model

Common in natural and technical science

Rarely used in social sciences

Strong focus on the "added value"

Too demanding, radically at odds with supervisors
expectations

The compromise model

Need-to-know literature review

A method chapter or a method appendix
Readers get to the "added value" quickly
Incorporate lit. review in the text and arguments itself

Time needed to write your thesis

Writing 500 words in each writing session = 160
sessions to complete 80,000 words, with
redrafting 320 sessions, 200 working days per
year
1000 words per day, writing the whole thesis
twice over should only take 160 days
At 2000 words a day the time involved shrinks
to just 80 days.

Thesis title
Does the current title really capture what you have done in
your draft of chapters?
Does it define exactly the central research question which
you have answered?
Does your titles vocabulary include the main theoretical
concepts or innovations or themes that run through your
research,
Does the title make clear the empirical referents of your
research, and the necessary limitations you have set for its
scope and approach?

Research phases 1/2

1. Problem definition
2. Analysis of existing knowledge: literature review,
interviews with experts
3. Determine research goals
4. Hypotheses
5. Research plan: a) units: population or sample, b)
variables: measurement properties, c) procedure

Research phases 2/2

6. Data gathering (observation, experiment)
7. Data analysis
8. Results interpretation
9. Report writing (article, book)

10. Publishing

Sophistication in research
Analytical RIGOR as a/the goal for research in social
sciences?
What happened to:
RELEVANCE
COMMUNICABILITY
SIMPLICITY?
Consequences for
(1) the manuscript review process
(2) PhD programs
(3) hiring
(4) the tenure and promotion review process
(Lehmann, McAllister, Staelin, 2011)

Rigor

Multicollinearity
Autocorrelation
Heteroscedasticity
Distributional assumptions of
the error term
Functional form
Sample selection
Static versus evolving data
Heterogeneity
Endogeneity

(Albers, 2012).

Publishing research
Understanding the journals market:
Major influences on journals long-run reputations:
1. Methods of refereeing;
2. Citation scores;
3. Journals type and its circulation; and
4. The overall time lag from first submitting a paper
through to its eventual publication
5. The reputation of the editors
(or editorial teams) and the editorial board
6. Professional ownership versus commercial
ownership
7. Survey responses

Essential skills for a researcher

Able to independently perform high quality/impact research
(AVDIC):
Assess others work, own work
Vision research (research agenda)
Design research

Implement research
Communicate (written, oral)

The dinner-party test

Be able to explain you question
In 2-3 minutes
In simple words
To someone without previous knowledge on the topic

If you fail
You do not understand the topic (yet)
You are not committed to the topic
The topic is dull and minute

What is your dissertation about?

What contribution do you aim to achieve?
What will be new or different about your work?
How would you justify the time and resources that
you will devote to it?

Recommended reading
Patrick Dunleavy : Authoring a PhD Thesis: How to Plan,
Draft, Write and Finish a Doctoral Dissertation. Palgrave
Macmillan (2003)
Johnson, Steven: Where Good Ideas Come From: The
Natural History of Innovation. Riverhead (2010)
Tips for PhD Students http://phdtips.com/
PhD humor: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php