Northeastern Higher Education (Summer 2005) Handbook

Ed.D. project

The University of Minnesota Ed.D. program is designed to assist the student throughout the three years in moving toward completion of the Ed.D. project. During the first summer students are introduced to the process of inquiry and begin to identify possible topic areas for the project. During the second year, an integrated, critical review of the literature and a topic analysis are developed. The review of literature serves as a basis for several components of the program: Part II of the prelim examination, the topic proposal, the prospectus and the second chapter of the dissertation (i.e., the literature review). The literature review, topic analysis, prospectus and final project are discussed below. Examples of student products are on reserve under the one-credit seminar number in the library at the University Center, Rochester.

Literature review

An integrated, critical literature review should be started early in the program with additions made on an on-going basis. The purpose of the review is to document the information available about the problem and to gain an understanding of the relevant contributions previously made in the area of the topic. This understanding provides students with a basis for their inquiry to further advance the understanding in the field.

Inquiry in Practice, an online course, is a valuable resource available to cohort students to assist them in beginning the literature search early and in providing a structure for obtaining, making sense of synthesizing, and conceptualizing the research literature. The course provides information about identifying a topic, searching the literature, reading critically, writing, and preparing the annotated bibliography. Students can obtain access to the site by contacting the EdPA coordinator of graduate studies. Because students are not enrolled formally in the online course, interactions on this site are not possible, but valuable information is available without the interaction.

The topic analysis

The topic analysis serves as a basis for a comprehensive prospectus, a detailed description of why and how the project will be completed. Development of the topic analysis begins the first summer with the identification of several possible topics for the eventual Ed.D. project (see department Web site <http://cehd.umn.edu/EdPA> for a list of Ed.D. projects completed in educational policy and administration in recent years). Through independent work and assistance from the cohort members and faculty members at Saturday Seminars during the first year, each student will produce a final topic analysis which can then be more fully developed into the special paper and then a prospectus.

The full prospectus, an expanded topic analysis written during the second year, will serve as the basis for the completion of the project during the third year. The topic analysis and prospectus contain components of the first three chapters of the dissertation (introduction, literature review, and methodology).

The prospectus

The Proposal for Approval and Conduct of Ed.D. Project

In the directions that follow, the term "proposal" refers to the document prepared by the student as the detailed plan for conducting the Ed.D. project.

1. The student, under supervision of the major adviser, prepares the study proposal following the guidelines set forth in cohort classes and seminars.
2. Any research, which employs the use of human subjects, must be approved in advance by the Human Subjects Committee prior to the gathering of the data. U of M and federal policies require that each project involving studies on humans be reviewed with respect to: (1) the rights and welfare of the individual(s) involved, (2) the appropriateness of the methods used to secure informed consent, and (3) the risks and potential benefits of the investigation.
   
   Request for approval forms may be obtained from <www.irb.umn.edu/>. Questions concerning exemptions or other aspects of human subjects research review should be addressed to: IRB Office at 612-626-5654 or fax 612-626-6061. Research may not be initiated until written notification of exemption is received. This includes recruitment of subjects, advertising, mailing or distributing consent forms, and data gathering.
3. The student and adviser select at least one other faculty member in the major who will be requested to serve with the advisers as a committee member in review of the project proposal.
4. The student and adviser contact committee members to review the project proposal.
   1. The project advisory committee is responsible for reviewing and approving the proposal outlining the content and method of the study.
   2. The three-committee members are expected to review and approve the proposal.
   3. The project proposal may need to be amended during the course of the review as a result of suggestions and criticisms.
5. The three committee members evaluate the content and method of the proposal and may authorize the conduct of the study pursuant to the proposal utilizing the thesis proposal approval form or reject the same.
6. The signed project approval form is forwarded to the Director of Graduate Studies with the abstract and any revisions resulting from the review.
7.  Upon approval, the Thesis Title Form, 250-word statement and cover sheet recommending committee members are forwarded to the Director of Graduate Studies, EdPA, U of M for final approval.
8. The student conducts the study, maintaining such contact with committee members as was decided during the proposal review.
9.  Copies of the completed study are distributed to all committee members who have been assigned as readers by the U of M Graduate School at least 30 days prior to the scheduling of the final oral examination. The student is advised to give copies to the nonreaders as well.
10. The thesis readers identified by the Graduate School may then certify the study as ready for defense. This must be filed with the Graduate School at least one week before the final oral is held.

Final project/thesis and publication

The organization and chapters of the final project depend on the type of research/project completed. The common chapters of a quantitative project might include the following:

• Chapter 1: Introduction
  • General statement of the problem
  • Significance of the study
  • Research hypotheses, questions, and objectives
  • Limitations and delimitations
  • Definition of terms
  • Summary
• Chapter 2: Review of Literature
  • Review of previous research and opinion
  • Interpretative summary of the current state of knowledge
  • Formulation of expected findings
  • Practical implications if findings are and are not as expected
• Chapter 3: Research method
  • Research design
  • Sampling procedures
  • Measures
  • Analysis Techniques/ Overview of statistical procedures
  • Summary
• Chapter 4: Research findings
  • Description of results for each hypothesis, question, or measure
  • Supplemental analyses
  • Summary
• Chapter 5: Summary and Discussion
  Introduction
  Summary of study
  Conclusions
  Discussion
  Recommendations

The most appropriate topics and organization will be dictated by the type and topic of study; the above outline is clearly not appropriate for qualitative research. Students should consult dissertation manuals, examples of completed dissertations conducted on similar topics and similar methodologies, and advisers. For specific guidelines about the thesis format required by the U of M Graduate School, see Web site.

Students should view the publication of their project in a professional journal and/or presentation at a professional conference as part of their program. The preparation of the article(s)/presentation should take place during or immediately following the completion of the project while all aspects are fresh in mind; the task becomes much more difficult as time passes.

During the first year, students will have identified journals and conferences that would be most likely to accept an article or presentation. Students will have examined the typical length and format of the articles in identified journals. While the typical research article is about 15 - 20 manuscript pages, typed double-space, articles should be adapted to the guidelines provided by or evidenced in the journal or call for proposals. Several resources provide guidelines for preparation of a journal article and preparation of a paper for a professional meeting, including Gall, Borg, and Gall's (1996) Educational Research, 6th Edition, Longman Publishers.

The department has high expectations for student scholarly written work. Student writing should reflect an appropriate level of basic composition skills, accepted professional writing style, and appropriate attribution.

It is important to note that the standards for scholarly writing are determined by the discipline as well as the cultural context. At the University of Minnesota, you will be expected to follow the standards and conventions of scholarly writing that prevail in the U.S.

Quality of writing
A high level of writing skill is expected for graduate students. While the program offers courses to assist students in reaching an appropriate level of research understanding and skills, students are responsible for attaining an appropriate level of writing skills.

To assist in this development, students can take advantage of various courses, services, and manuals. If appropriate, students should use a college level writing handbook for reference when completing written assignments. No specific grammar and composition handbook is recommended; several satisfactory versions are available in the University bookstores. For information about the wide variety of writing resources available to University of Minnesota students, see Chapter 5, Student Services and Resources.

Manuscript writing style
Students will be expected to use the manuscript style of the American Psychological Association (APA) in their writing. Learning and using the APA style early assists students in reading the professional literature and preparing their final dissertation. Students should note the guidelines in the APA Manual for general guidance about writing as well as for citation of sources including electronic references. APA assistance can also be obtained in an interactive, electronic resource; information is available at www.apastyle.org.

A (Humorous) Guide to Writing

1. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
2. Always avoid alliteration.
3. Avoid clichés like the plague. They’re old hat.
4. Employ the vernacular.
5. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
6. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.
7. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
8. Contractions aren’t necessary.
9. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
10. One should never generalize.
11. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.”
12. Comparisons are as bad as clichés.
13. Don’t be redundant; don’t use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous.
14. Be more or less specific.
15. Understatement is always best.
16. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be avoided.
20. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.

Academic dishonesty/plagiarism
As noted in the Web sites below, a major purpose of graduate education at the University of Minnesota is to instill in each student an understanding of and capacity for scholarship, independent judgment, academic rigor, and intellectual honesty. To maintain the highest ethical standards of professional conduct and integrity, the University has articulated the complementary responsibilities of faculty and graduate students in support of intellectual honesty.

Scholastic dishonesty means plagiarizing; cheating on assignments or examinations; engaging in unauthorized collaboration on academic work; taking, acquiring, or using test materials without faculty permission; submitting false or incomplete records of academic achievement; acting alone or in cooperation with another to falsify records or to obtain dishonestly grades, honors, awards, or professional endorsement; or altering, forging, or misusing a University academic record; or fabricating or falsifying data, research procedures, or data analysis.

Students need to be aware of the potential consequences of plagiarism. Any work taken from another source must be documented, and in no case should another person’s work be presented as one’s own. The use of exact words of others, and previous research clearly requires citation; citing another’s ideas through paraphrasing or restating someone else’s analysis or conclusions may be less obvious but is considered plagiarism if presented without attribution. Inadequate citations constitute plagiarism and can result in failing a course and possible dismissal from the University. If in doubt, students should check the APA Manual or consult with their professor or adviser. Examples of acceptable and unacceptable paraphrasing follow.

Web sites of relevant information including University policies and procedures are below.

• Regents' code for student conduct [.pdf]
• Office for Student Academic Integrity
• Code of Conduct, Mutual Responsibilities in Graduate Education, and other resources
• Academic misconduct

Examples of Acceptable and Unacceptable Paraphrasing¹

Original—from APA Style Manual 1994

“The essence of the scientific method involved observations that can be repeated and verified by others. Hence, psychologists do not make up data or modify their results to support a hypothesis. Errors of emission also are prohibited. Psychologists do not omit troublesome observations from their reports so as to present a more convincing story.

Careful preparation of manuscripts for publication is essential, but errors can still occur. It is the author’s responsibility to make such errors public if they are discovered after publication. The first step is to inform the editor and the publisher so that a correction notice can be published. The goal of such a correction is to correct the knowledge base so that the error is brought to the information. Corrections published in APA journals are connected with the original article in the PsycINFO database so that the correction will be retrieved whenever the original article is retrieved.” (APA, 1994, p. 292)

Plagiarism—Unacceptable. This is a ‘thesaurus’ equivalent, not a paraphrase. There is no “correct” way to cite this.

The core of the scientific approach involves experiences that can be replicated and tested by others. (APA, 1994) Therefore, psychologists do not fabricate data or change their results to support a theory. They are also prohibited from omitting information. Psychologists do not to leave out problematic observations from their work even if doing so makes a more convincing argument.

Meticulous preparation of manuscripts for publication is crucial, but mistakes can still happen (APA, 1994). The author must make such errors public if the errors are discovered after the article has been published. To do this the author must first inform the editor and the publisher so that a correction notice or errata can be published. The objective of such an errata is to rectify the knowledge base so that the error is caught by future users of the information. Corrections published in journals that use APA style are linked with the original work in the PsycINFO computer database so that the correction will be included whenever the original article is accessed.

Paraphrase—OK
1st example is summary paraphrase; 2nd is more detailed paraphrase. Neither is plagiarism.

As stated in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (1994), the ethical principles of scientific publication are designed to ensure the integrity of scientific knowledge and to protect the intellectual property rights of others. As the Publication Manual explains, authors are expected to correct the record if they discover errors in their publications*

OR

According to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (1994), publishing fabricated data or falsified results undermines the credibility of scientific research. Such active misrepresentation is considered a sin of commission. Equally reprehensible is its companion, the sin of omission, where inconvenient or contradictory data are omitted so that a researcher’s hypotheses appear better supported.

These "sins" are different than the honest errors that can occur during publication. Both falsified results or intentionally omitted data are intended to mislead, whereas errors are inadvertent and void of such intent. The APA Manual (1994) demands that errors caught after publication be acknowledged and corrected in the same fora that contain the original work. This permits people using that forum weeks, months, or years later to avoid perpetuating the original mistake. The author informs the editor and publisher that s/he has discovered an error and a correction of the error (i.e., an errata) is published in the next available journal and linked to the original work in all databases containing the original (APA, 1994). Errors that are caught prior to publication should be corrected, averting any need for such actions.

*Note from author—this paragraph is a verbatim example from the APA Style Manual, 1994. EBS/00

1 Dr. Erica Stern, University of Minnesota, Spring 2000.