Qualitative Dissertation Methodology. Nathan Durdella
serve to support project design and execution, skills acquisition, and socialization for students. In fact, these steps, or events, in the context of the dissertation research process generally function as a set of cultural rituals that advising faculty reproduce among new members of the field. In what can be considered an apprenticeship model of academic training, dissertation rituals prepare advanced graduate students for expectations of junior faculty members, including the process of tenure and promotion (Smith, 2010b). While academic training in the form of dissertation research may not necessarily lead to a post with your chair (Bronfrenbrenner & Juravich, 2001), the ritualistic behaviors related to dissertations in which faculty advisors engage intensify the cultural bonds between senior, junior, and new members of the field and support the development of a set of marketable skills for students. Indeed, this advising model allows students to navigate a supervised research process—from conceptualization to implementation and dissemination. But that is not the end of it—establishing and maintaining relationships, managing expectations, meeting deadlines, and participating in private and public events allow faculty advisors to assess the value and quality of advisees’ dissertation research, enforcing standards that the larger group sets.
Traditional dissertation rituals frequently take place in curricular and advising contexts. Across general and specific areas of program focus—for example, applied programs that train scholar-practitioners—teaching and advising faculty tend to formally structure events in the dissertation research process in coursework. Here, a range of dissertation research topics may appear in research methods course sequences (where qualitative research design and methods may be explored), yearlong dissertation seminars (where literature reviews and research backgrounds may be developed), and field-based classes (where mini dissertation studies may be piloted). Alongside formal course requirements, advising tends to be where most programs situate events in the dissertation research process. In fact, the most substantive and meaningful dissertation work tends to take place directly with program faculty as dissertation chair or committee members. Taken together, ritualistic events associated with monograph or book-length dissertation research usually transpire in large part over an extended period (of years) in clusters of activity as follows below.
Dissertation Advising as Research Apprenticeship
Dissertation research rituals promote contact with your chair through an advising process that supports your study. The practice of consulting your chair and members of your dissertation committee offers you an opportunity to be trained by experts in your chosen field of study. Working closely with an expert in the field emerged out of a type of apprenticeship system to train new scholars in the standards of social and behavioral science research, and designing and executing a rigorous, systematic investigation into human social or behavioral phenomena require the supervision of someone who knows how to go about setting up and working within specific research approaches. Over time, this training supports your development as a researcher and identifies you with an established or senior member of the field.
First- and second-year dissertation rituals.
From program orientations, first-year program advising, and first-year coursework, both formal and informal elements of dissertation research development take place. For example, first-year workshops, seminars, and methods courses cover issues related to the identification of a dissertation research topic; dissertation format and chapter contents; dissertation chair selection guidance (if a chair has not been assigned to students at program entry); and support for an exploratory search of the empirical literature to initiate the development of a dissertation research problem, purpose, and questions. As students transition from the first to second years of their programs, dissertation work tends to take the form of advanced methods courses, faculty research participation, and formal exam processes. With a majority of classroom work done, preparing for and passing qualifying or comprehensive (comp) exams and developing an advanced skill set in the qualitative methodological areas of focus for dissertation work tend to occupy the focus of student advising. Parallel to coursework and exam processes, revisions to dissertation research problems, purposes, and questions—all within the contexts of developing dissertation proposals—occur. At the end of the second year of program study, dissertation proposal hearings may take place—but frequently these events move into the third year and beyond—so let us take a look them now.
Dissertation proposal hearing.
Once past the lock-step comprehensive exam rituals of the second or third program year (or later, in some cases), traditional dissertation rituals typically intensify. At this point—either with the successful outcome in the exam process or committee approval at the proposal hearing, students transition from doctoral student to doctoral candidate. Indeed, this proposal hearing—or defense—seems to mark the move from graduate student to early career apprentice. After all, if students can defend their research work, repel critiques of what they propose to do, and overcome objections to their design and methods—all with the support of their chair—then they have earned this new academic status. And the proposal hearing tends to occur—after committee formation and approval—irrespective of the type of dissertation, traditional or emerging form. Indeed, given the strong need to reproduce disciplinary standards for research work and norms of academic behavior, dissertation committees generally follow formal policies and informal customs that codify belief systems in the field of research and function to enforce normative expectations for early career scholarship. The specific practices that accompany the proposal hearing reify what faculty value: transparent and open process, collegial discussion and debate, critical review and evaluation of work, and developing constructive and prescriptive plans to address areas of improvement. One more cultural value undergirds the proposal hearing: trust. That is, under the apprenticeship model and supervisorial role of faculty advisors, students are expected to address committee recommendations before they go into the field and execute their study. One final set of values may appear in committee environments where faculty members identify as qualitative researchers: an epistemological orientation of social construction of reality and an interpretivist research paradigm.
Final dissertation defense.
At the conclusion of the proposal hearing, with recommendations in hand, students turn their attention to work on revisions, human subject protocols (if applicable), and logistics of fieldwork in qualitative dissertation contexts. Once approved by an IRB to conduct human subjects research, dissertation events move into the field with interviews, observations, and a whole range of data collection and analysis activities unfold. All of these tasks lead to the development of the monograph dissertation study, if traditional, or sets of article-length studies or other project forms of dissertation research, if alternative formats serve as the basis of a culminating project in a doctoral program. Much like the proposal hearing, the final dissertation hearing—or defense—frequently follows a formal process—a brief student presentation, committee discussion, and committee deliberation. However, two practices unique to final dissertation hearings, in some program and institutional contexts, add to the activities that occur in the proposal hearing: a public demonstration or talk that presents results, findings, and recommendation for research and practice; and a signing ceremony of a page that inserts in the front matter of the monograph dissertation in more traditional forms, and in some cases, one final ceremonial custom—a celebration of students’ research work.
Revising, formatting, and filing the dissertation as rituals.
So you are not quite done with events related to your dissertation after the final defense. First, students must do the same thing that they did after the first go-around: incorporate committee feedback and revise their final dissertation manuscript based on recommendations from committee members. These final committee comments tend to be limited to results, findings, and recommendations—what appears in the final two chapters of a book-length study. What is more, students must also negotiate with institutional submission systems, which may include electronic or human (think university librarian or university reader or graduate studies officer) format checks and copyright agreements. Filing the dissertation is generally the last act in a series of institutional rituals. See Figure 2.1 for a visual representation of dissertation rituals in doctoral programs.