UCLA DIS 298-B PhD Seminar:

Doctoral Seminar in Research Methods and Design

John V. Richardson Jr., Professor

Winter 2013 Term

245, GSE&IS Bldg.

Course Description: | Course Vision, Goal, and Learning Objectives |

Relationship to Other Courses: | Readings: |

Grading Criteria: | Proposal Writing Checklist | Power Point Lecture Slides

Course Description:

According to the School's Announcements, the official catalog description reads: " Survey of quantitative, qualitative, and historical research designs. Ethical issues; conceptualization and measurement; indexes, scales, and sampling; experimental, survey, field, and evaluation research; data analysis.” Hence, the course concentrates on the analysis and evaluation of research from library and information science. Current doctoral students are strongly encouraged to have completed at least one research methodology course before enrolling.

Course Vision, Goal, and Learning Objectives:

My vision is that this cohort of doctoral students will become successful members of the entrepreneurial professoriate. The overarching goal of this course is to provide a structured way of thinking about fundable IS problems and their resolutions, so that doctoral students will be able to write a solid dissertation proposal and be more competitive in "grant getting" upon graduation.

The four-fold objectives of DIS 298-B are to allow doctoral students:

1) To read critically the literature related to a research problem in library and information science;

2) To think critically about research topics within this field;

3) To think analytically about research problems in this area; and

4) To write a well-structured proposal to solve a problem in the area of library and information science.

DIS 298-A will be an intensive experience but by the end of the course, successful doctoral students will be able to distinguish between topics and problems and to identify problems in library and information science as well as be able to determine significant problems. Further, doctoral students will recognize "flat" studies or those lacking depth. Doctoral students will be able to propose higher order objectives (i.e., rather than proposing to undertake merely descriptive studies). They will be able to state key research questions and make provisional theses/hypotheses. Doctoral students will be able to identify critical milestones in the scheduling of events necessary to carry out the proposal as well as present a defensible budget. Finally, successful doctoral students also will have an extensive bibliography or reading list which could be useful in preparing for their written qualifying examinations.

In summary, doctoral students will be provided a structured way of thinking about problems and their resolution(s), but doctoral students will be responsible for providing the actual content of their proposals.

Limitations and Relationship to Other Courses:

My particular approach in DIS 298-B is sometimes called inquiry methodology (i.e., where the emphasis is on the what and why of research rather than strictly the hows of research); of course, it is applicable to your thinking about a dissertation proposal, but the actual research methods employed in your own study will come from your other coursework and/or readings. Finally, the intent of this class is that you can carry on this investigation by enrolling in DIS 596/597 with an interested faculty member during the Spring 2013 term.

Readings and Textbooks:

Extensive recommended readings on research methods can be found in the bibliography. No particular research methods textbook is required. Rather the instructor encourages you to read as many different texts as possible such as Babbie, Kerlinger, Nachmias, Rosenthal and Rosnow as well as Powell and Connaway or Pickard. In addition, you may find the Sage series useful.

Grading Criteria:

One (1) research proposal, 100% of final grade. Grading is necessarily subjective; however, each section of the proposal will be scored on the commonly accepted 100 point system. Remember that proposal writing is persuasive writing--you are trying to convince the reader that the subject is worthwhile, the method sound, and worth the investment of the doctoral committee or agency's time (and money). Scoring will be based on the instructor's finding the answers to the questions found in the "Proposal Writing Checklist." A model quantitative proposal by Matthew Saxton can be found here (part 1, part 2, and part 3) while the model qualitiative proposal by Amy VanScoy is available on CCLE.

UCLA DIS 298-B Class Schedule:

DIS 298-B meets once a week during the Winter Quarter. After the first couple of orienting sessions, the third session will begin with student presentations and discussion of presentations. Generally, the instructor will lecture on the next assignment during the second part of the class. Doctoral students are responsible for making photocopies of their draft proposal so that the instructor and other students can follow along during the presentation.

Date	Lecture Topics	Proposal Section Due
Session 1	Orientation: A Critical Spirit of Inquiry and How Professors Think (2010); Types of Problems & Nature of Problems (Model Proposal)	Identify a Topic
Session 2	Constructing Thorough Literature Reviews	Problem (3 sentences)
Session 3	Logical or Theoretical Structures	Literature Review (model 1 and 2)
Session 4	Vision, Mission, Goals, and Objectives	Structure
Session 5	Articulating Research Questions	Objectives
Session 6	Stating the Thesis/Hypothesis	Questions
Session 7	Framing Methodological Orientations	Thesis/Hypothesis
Session 8	Scheduling, and Budgeting	Qual/Quan Method
Session 9	Personnel	Qual/Quan Method
Session 10	Submission and Review Processes	S and B; Personnel
Mar 15th	ALL PAPERS DUE BY FRIDAY, 12 NOON

NOTE: Doctoral students are responsible for photocopying their presentations for other members of the class as well as the instructor.

MORE NOTES ON GRADING:

In addition to content as outlined above, grading will consider: A) consistent bibliographical style, B) neatness of presentation and, C) avoidance of the 10 common errors listed below.

A) If you have a question about bibliographical (or house style) and cannot find an answer based on the publisher's or journal's citation practice, please use Turabian's A Manual for Writers (latest ed.). Unusual citations are probably covered by the University of Chicago's latest edition of the Style Manual (see online website), but the definitive source on government publications is the CIS Guide.

B) Neatness of presentation includes, but is not limited, to the following criteria. Staple your paper in the left-hand corner; do not put it in a special binder or cover.

C) Based on my experience reading proposals, principal investigators have difficulty with some of the following:

1. Number every page; do not right justify paper

2. Proofread for typographical errors; i.e., recieved

3. Spell out contractions; a formal paper requirement

4. Cite source of evidence; personal opinion is fine, but how do you know what you know or state?

5. Underline titles cited in body and notes, if any

6. Use proper diction. For example, user or inquirer rather than patron; received rather than got; difficulty rather than problem.

7. Observe the following:

A. feel, think, or believe; distinctions are important

B. it's, it is versus its, possessive

C. "this" should be followed by a noun in most sentences

8. Avoid needless intensifiers. For example, very important; either it is important or it is not.

9. Avoid first-person in most cases, unless the journal accepts first-person.

10. Watch for split infinitives. For example, "to merely serve," or "to automatically become," or "to formally advocate," or "to accurately answer," or "to consistently cite," or "to fully answer."

All term papers are subject to a half-letter grade reduction for not heeding any of the above ten points. Late papers will also be subject to an additional half-letter grade reduction. And, incompletes are not anticipated without advance notice prior to the eighth week of class.

Updated and spell checked: 5 March 2013