Developing Quality Dissertations in The Social Sciences

17221-DQD-SocialSciences
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page b
COPYRIGHT 2009 BY
STYLUS PUBLISHING, LLC
Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC
22883 Quicksilver Drive
Sterling, Virginia 20166-2102
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any
electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying,
recording and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication-Data
Lovitts, Barbara E., 1960
Developing quality dissertations in the social sciences : a graduate students guide to achieving excellence /
Barbara E. Lovitts and Ellen L. Wert. 1st ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-57922-261-1 (pbk.)
1. Dissertations, AcademicHandbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Social sciencesStudy and teaching
(Graduate)Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Wert, Ellen L., 1953 II. Title.
LB2369.L685 2009
808'.0663dc22
2008031382
13-digit ISBN: 978-1-57922-261-1 (paper)
Printed in the United States of America
All first editions printed on acid free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute
Z39-48 Standard.
First Edition, 2009
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Acknowledgments
Credit for the idea of translating the book version of this work into a handbook for graduate students and faculty goes to Louis Sherman, Purdue University, one of the members of my advisory
committee. Ted Greenwood, of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, provided moral and financial
support for the project and wholeheartedly endorsed creating not one generic handbook but
three, one each for the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. My publisher and editor, John
von Knorring, Stylus Publishing, ably orchestrated all the people and pieces in what turned out
to be a longer than anticipated process. Many, many thanks go to Ellen Wert, my co-author, and
the consultants who worked with her, Chris Golde, of Stanford University and a member of my
advisory committee; Mary Huba, Iowa State University; and Dannelle Stevens, Portland State
University. Last but not least is Karen Klomparens, of Michigan State University and an advisory
committee member, who contributed intellectually to this project and provided an institutional
home for the funds that supported it.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page i
Developing
Quality
Dissertations
in the Social Sciences
A Graduate Students Guide
to Achieving Excellence
Barbara E. Lovitts
and
Ellen L. Wert
S T E R L I N G , V I RG I N I A
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page ii
Contents
List of Tables
iii
Preface
To the Faculty
iv
To the Student
vii
1
2
3
4
5
Identifying the Purpose of the Dissertation
Understanding Originality and Significance
000
Aiming for Excellence in the Dissertation
000
Maintaining Consistent Quality Within the Dissertation
000
Achieving Excellence
000
Appendix A: Tasks of the Social Sciences Dissertation
000
Appendix B: Advice for Writing a Social Sciences Dissertation
000
Making the Implicit Explicit: About the Study
000
ii
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page iii
Tables
Table 1.1.
The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions from Faculty in the Social Sciences
000
Table 1.2.
The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions from Faculty in Economics,

Psychology, and Sociology
000
Original Contribution: Characterizations from Faculty in Economics,

000
Significant Contribution: Characterizations from Faculty in Economics,

000
Table 3.1.
The Economics Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
000
Table 3.2.
The Psychology Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
000
Table 3.3.
The Sociology Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
000
Table 4.1.
The Tasks of a Dissertation in the Social Sciences
000
Table 4.2.
Introduction in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
000
Table 4.3.
Literature Review in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
000
Table 4.4.
Theory in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
000
Table 4.5.
Method in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
000
Table 4.6.
Results or Data Analysis in the Social Science Dissertation at Different

Quality Levels
000
Discussion and Conclusion in the Social Science Dissertation at Different

Quality Levels
000
Table 2.1.
Table 2.2.
Table 4.7.
Table A.1. Tasks of the Economics Dissertation by Quality Level
000
Table A.2. Tasks of the Psychology Dissertation by Quality Level
000
Table A.3. Tasks of the Sociology Dissertation by Quality Level
000
Table B.
000
Writing the Social Science Dissertation
iii
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page iv
To the Faculty
on your own dissertation, you

probably now see it as a major exercise that demonstrated your expertise at the moment when you
were ready to make the transition from being a student
to being a professional.
Most of your faculty colleagues would say the same
thing, as I discovered through a study of graduate faculty across 10 disciplines. Again and again, the faculty
described the dissertation as both an opportunity to
develop and sharpen skills and knowledge and evidence of a students readiness to work independently
at a professional level.1
This understanding of the dissertation, it seems,
comes with some distance from the process. However,
while students are anticipating or engaged in the
process, the dissertation is a bit of a mystery and a
source of great anxiety. Many students spend a great
deal of time (perhaps too much time) wrestling with
process questions such as how to identify a topic and
how to organize time and material. They try to make
sense of a vague demand that the dissertation be original and significant. Important questions about expectations of qualityWhat does it mean to make an
original or significant contribution? What constitutes
an outstanding or very good dissertation?often go
unasked because it is assumed, by both faculty and
students alike, that students should simply know.
Of course, they do not know. That they do not is
evident from the varying levels of quality, both from
student to student in a department and within individual dissertations. Some faculty spend a great deal of
time coaching and guiding students through the
process and do so for a longer period of time than
should be necessary. Further, the dissertation is the
point of attrition for nearly half of aspiring PhDs who
make it this far. Yet it is the rare department that ex-
plicitly and publicly states its expectations about this

capstone project.
OOKING BACK
Shared Expectations
When I asked experienced dissertation advisors to describe their expectations for originality, significance,
and quality in their students dissertations, the responses I heard were clear and consistent both within
and across the disciplines and fields. The faculty offered similar views on the purpose of the dissertation
and what it means to make an original and a significant contribution. They also expressed similar views
on what constitutes outstanding, very good, acceptable, or unacceptable work.
It seems, then, that students spend a great deal of
valuable time and energy trying to guess something
that the faculty implicitly agree upon but have not articulated in any formal way, either to the students or
each other.
Why Explain the Dissertation?

Although the dissertation represents the transition
from student to professional and should display the
capacity for self-directed work, students need and deserve the benefit of guidance about the process and
clear expectations about quality. The department or
program has a responsibility to communicate clearly
both its standards of quality and those of the discipline. The faculty advising dissertations have a particular responsibility to explain the process, work with
students to set firm but realistic deadlines, and provide
timely, constructive feedback at every step.
iv
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page v
P R E FA C E
There are ethical, professional, and practical reasons for making expectations about the dissertation
explicit, the process of review transparent, and the
production efficient: It is only right and fair to give
students guidance about standards and expectations
and then allow them to make choices about how to
use it. Members of the profession who prepare doctoral students should communicate the norms and
skills of the field to those who seek to enter it.2 The
process of dissertation advising will move more
quickly and efficiently if students know what is expected of them.
Some faculty members may argue that this call for
greater clarity and transparency is a plea for handholding or coddling. Actually, I am suggesting something quite the opposite. If advisors provide guidelines
about standards and expectations from the start, students responsibilities for meeting them become immediately apparent. Students will also have
benchmarks against which they can judge and revise
their work, reducing the amount of work for advisors
and committee members.
Making Expectations Explicit

When it became clear that the findings of my study
could be put to very specific and practical use, the
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which funded the study,
offered to underwrite a set of booklets for graduate students in the sciences, engineering, and mathematics;
social sciences; and humanities. The booklets summarize faculty members descriptions of the purpose of
the dissertation, the role and nature of an original and
a significant contribution, and levels of performance.
The specific examples throughout this booklet,
many of them drawn from economics, psychology, and
sociology, represent the observations of 86 faculty from
21 social science departments.
Using This Booklet:

Benefits to the Faculty and Program
Although, as I discuss below, my primary hope is that
you and your students use this booklet together, I also
hope you and your colleagues will find it valuable in
your ongoing conversation about guiding your programs students. Over time, a collective effort to artic-
v
ulate expectations will help your program achieve a
consistent level of quality. In addition, with a transparent process in place and a body of evidence around
student achievement, you will also be better equipped
to provide information about program quality as part
of internal and external accountability processes.
Using This Booklet:

Benefits to the Student
This booklet is intended primarily as an entry point
for discussion with the students you advise. I do not
pretend to represent what you, as advisor, expect or
what your program requires. Instead, you will find,
throughout the booklet I urge the student to talk with
you and your colleagues about the particular emphases
and expectations of your discipline, subdiscipline, department and program. The information in this booklet is offered as a way to start the discussion.
Indeed, the earlier students are introduced to the
standards and expectations of their disciplines, the
better. You might consider providing this booklet to
students long before they start the dissertation, for example, in a research methods course or in a journal
club.
Whether you bring this booklet to your students
attention or they bring it to yours, I hope that you will
use it with them to plan, set goals, and provide feedback on work in progress. For example, the sections
about the purposes of the dissertation, originality,
and significance would be important to discuss with
students who are preparing proposals and planning
their projects. The descriptions of quality might be
of use as you discuss the specific goals of a students
project.
I believe that you and your students will find the
process of identifying expectations for the dissertation,
as a whole and in its parts, very useful. Your students
will be better able to assess their own work and address
deficiencies before they submit drafts to you. When you
receive drafts, you can use the expectations to provide
focused feedback. This puts the conversation about
quality directly in the context of professional standards
and expectations.
Finally, your efforts to articulate quality will help
students learn to judge quality in their own and others
work. They can share what they have learned with colleagues and peers; ultimately they will become better
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page vi
P R E FA C E
vi
professionals and, for those who become faculty members, better advisors.
I do not, however, suggest that these descriptions of
quality be casually given quantitative values and used to
score dissertations for decisions about passing or failing. In fact, I strongly resist this impulse. I hope that
you will use the descriptors with students to set goals
and monitor progress while they are in the process of researching and writing their dissertations so that they
can make improvements along the way.
Focusing Students on Responsibility

More clearly defining expectations is a way to inspire
students and spur them to higher levels of achievement. I suggest offering a set of clear expectations
about the dissertation, articulating goals, and providing feedback and guidance because I believe doing so
challenges students to meet their responsibility as aspiring scholars and researchers, to check their progress
toward professional excellence, and to work more efficiently and independently.

Barbara E. Lovitts
Notes
1. The study and the findings are described in detail in Barbara E. Lovitts, Making the Implicit Explicit:
Creating Performance Expectations for the Dissertation
(Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2007).
2. On this topic, faculty and graduate students alike
might be interested in the observations of senior faculty
from neuroscience, education, and the history of science, along with others from the humanities, mathematics and science disciplines, found in C. M. Golde,
G. E. Walker, and associates, Envisioning the Future of
Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline.
Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2006).
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page vii
To the Student
A Question of Quality
just beginning your graduate studies or have advanced standing in

your program, it is highly likely the dissertation is much on your mindand with good reason.
This capstone project of your graduate education is
not like anything else you have written before. It is unlike anything you will write afterward.
The dissertation is a unique, hybrid projectboth
a professional-level report on research and a crucial
piece of evidence of your qualification for a credential.
It is a point of exit from student status and a point of
entry to professional and scholarly life.
In short, your dissertation is a process and a product.
Writing a dissertation is a process of developing expert knowledge: the understanding, skills, and thought
processes of a professional researcher. In this sense, you
began your dissertation as soon as you entered your
graduate program. Through classes, supervised research,
participation in journal clubs, teaching assistantships,
and conversations with fellow students, faculty members, mentors, and advisors, you are acquiring skills and
sorting information, learning about issues, making connections, and developing ideas for work to be done in
your fieldall of which is necessary for writing the
dissertation.
As a product, the dissertation is an external representation that you have achieved the expertise necessary to be a professional in your field. It demonstrates
that you know how to approach and master complex
ideas and information; you have mastered your disciplines knowledge base, acquired its professional skills
and competencies, and are capable of doing independent research. And so, as a product, the dissertation
serves as a union card or credential for admission
into the scholarly and professional community.
HETHER YOU ARE
Faculty in the social sciences are currently giving serious

thought to the nature and meaning of the dissertation.
Many departments and programs are moving away
from single-study dissertations, long the traditional
form, and toward a dissertation compiled from a set of
articles or research studies. Your dissertation might focus on a single study, report on several studies, or consist of a collection of published or publishable papers.
Judgments about the quality of a dissertation, however, are independent of its form. As you talk with your
advisor and dissertation committee members about the
form your dissertation will take and the departmental
requirements you should meet, you should be asking
questions about their expectations: What does it mean to
make an original or significant contribution? What criteria
will be used to judge the quality of my work?
Starting the Conversation About Quality

Knowing that questions about quality and expectations
often go unasked, and that few programs or departments have explicit expectations, I decided to ask a
representative group of faculty who have extensive experience advising dissertations to describe what they
expect in a dissertation: What is the purpose of the dissertation? What constitutes an original or significant
contribution? What makes a dissertation outstanding,
very good, or acceptable? Under what conditions is
work unacceptable?
The responses of 86 faculty from 21 economics,
psychology, and sociology departments are the foundation of this booklet. As a way to start the conversation
vii
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page viii
P R E FA C E
viii
about quality, I offer these advisors general descriptions of standards and expectations for the dissertation
in the social sciences, with specific examples drawn
from psychology, economics, and sociology.
It is important to keep in mind that these descriptions are a starting place. After reading this booklet,
talk with your advisors and other faculty members to
understand the expectations specific to your field, department, and project. Ask them what in your department and field is considered to be an original or
significant contribution and what constitutes an outstanding or very good dissertation. Read recent dissertations from your department. Ask your advisors to
recommend an outstanding or very good dissertation
in your fieldand study it. Look at your own work
critically and ask for feedback in terms of the descriptors of quality presented here.
I also suggest that you discuss this booklet and its
information with your fellow students. It is an opportunity to develop colleagues and a way to combat isolation and the feeling that you are the only person
wrestling with tough questions.
In fact, as you will see throughout this booklet, the
key to quality in the dissertation is communication. If
nothing else, I hope that reading this booklet will
prompt you to have many conversations with your
dissertation advisor, to seek more than one mentor
among the faculty, and to talk with other students to
compare experiences. I hope you will map out your
dissertation with your advisor and committee and

check in frequently with them. Finally, I hope you will
ask questions, ask for feedback, and follow up with
your programs administrators if you are not getting
the help you need.
A Question of
Professional Responsibility
As someone pursuing advanced training, you are learning what constitutes credible work in the field. Your increasing understanding of the standards of the field is
part of what makes you a professional. It also means
that you have to take responsibility for your work.
Whether your faculty mentors, dissertation advisor
or advisors, committee members, or department
heads take the initiative to make their expectations of
quality explicit or you take the initiative to bring this
booklet to their attention and ask for their thoughts,
once their expectations are made clear, it is your responsibility to act on them. As someone who aspires
to thePhD, you are responsible for setting goals for
yourself, checking your progress, asking for feedback,
and taking feedback in the context of professional
standards.
I wish you well in your work.
Barbara E. Lovitts
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 1
1
on the title page of nearly every dissertation, Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, underscore that the dissertation is part of a
process. The requirements of your program and the
many informal opportunities for learning are designed
to move you from student to professional, from someone largely dependent on others for guidance in learning to an independent, expert learner and producer of
knowledge.
Consider the observations of the faculty who participated in the study on which this booklet is based.
The various purposes they ascribe to the dissertation,
summarized in Table 1.1, point to the dissertation as

a product that provides evidence that you have mastered professional skills and knowledge: your disciplines theories and methods and a vast array of facts,
principles, concepts, and paradigms. The dissertation
is also evidence that you have developed informed
opinions about various issues, learned how to approach
problems, and how to judge others work. Whether
you plan a career in academia, government, business,
industry, or in the nonprofit sector, the successful
completion of your dissertation will signify your ability to conduct high-level inquiry and to create new
knowledge.
HE WORDS
Table 1.1 The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions From Faculty in the Social Sciences
The purpose of the dissertation is to prepare the student to be a professional in the discipline.
Through this preparation the student learns and demonstrates the ability to conduct independent,
original, and significant research. The dissertation thus shows that the student is able to
identify/define problems,
generate questions and hypotheses,
review and summarize the literature,
apply appropriate methods,
collect data properly,
analyze and judge evidence,
discuss findings,
produce publishable results,
engage in a sustained piece of research or argument,
think and write critically and coherently.
The dissertation shows mastery of the field, that the student is ready to be a professional in and contribute to the discipline.
The dissertation prepares the student for a career. It is the capstone of the graduate education and
research experience, a rite of passage from student to professional. It is a union card or credential
for admission to the profession.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 2
D E V E L O P I N G Q U A L I T Y D I S S E R T AT I O N S I N T H E S O C I A L S C I E N C E S
Table 1.2 provides descriptions that emerged from
the discussions with the faculty about the dissertation
in their discipline. As you consider the discipline-specific examples in Table 1.2, think about your particular
field and program. Ask your advisor and other faculty
members what they consider the purpose of the dissertation to be. What aspects of the dissertation does your
field or program emphasize? What are the expectations,
for example, about the quality of writing?
As you discuss your dissertation with your advisor
and committee members, ask about ways your particular project best lends itself to serving these purposes.
What, specifically, must your dissertation demonstrate?
What, exactly, will give evidence that you have mastered the expected knowledge and skills? What will
demonstrate your capacity to independently produce
professional-level work in the future? From these conversations, you might want to draw up a summary of
the purposes you and your advisors agree on.
Ask your advisor, committee, and other faculty mentors to suggest recent dissertations from your department that might serve as good examples. Look at how
the students assembled their dissertations. Put yourself
in your committees shoes and consider how the students fulfilled the purposes of the dissertation that your
advisors have described.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 3

Table 1.2 The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions From Faculty in Economics, Psychology, and
Sociology
Economics
The purpose of the dissertation is to allow students to
practice the habits of professional economists;
learn to be researchers who do original, creative, significant work;
learn how to do researchgenerate questions, apply the appropriate methods, and solve
problems independently at a professional level.
The dissertation demonstrates the students ability to do original research, use tools appropriately,
and produce an independent piece of work.
Its function is to launch a career and help the student get a job; to credential the individual as a
professional economist.
Psychology
The purpose of the dissertation is to allow students to learn how to be an independent researcher.
The dissertation demonstrates the students skills and ability to independently conceive and conduct
original, significant, scholarly research: develop important researchable problems, define an experiment,
generate and address hypotheses, conduct the experiment, and produce publishable results.
The dissertation is a process that encourages and fosters creativity, a test of whether the student
can do research independently, the preparation for and launching of a career, on-the-job training, a
capstone, a rite of passage, the culmination of graduate education and the start of a career as an investigator, and a transition from being a student to being an independent scholar.
Sociology
The dissertation trains scholars; the student learns how to do independent research, learns certain
useful skills, learns to synthesize the literature, analyze unformed data, and reach conclusions and
write them up; the student learns what the professional standard of scholarship is.
The dissertation demonstrates that the student can mount an original, independent research project and take it from conceptualization to completion independently, formulate problems or questions,
review the literature, collect and analyze data, and discuss findings. It demonstrates that the student
can do sociology, knows the area at a sufficient level of depth to teach it, and can be an independent,
productive academic/scholar.
The process of the dissertation moves the students from thinking of themselves as research assistants to thinking of themselves as independent researchers/sociologists. It develops independence
and the ability to do original and significant research and put together a product that has internallogic, is coherent, and makes an innovative, significant contribution to the field.
The dissertation gives the student a product that can be published; it teaches the skills necessary
to get a tenure-track job. It is a rite of passage, a test for establishing a persons claim to be a scholar,
a certificate for admission into the profession.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 4
2
the terms original and

significant in the examples in chapter 1. Maybe
you have heard or been told that you must make
an original and significant contribution to the field
through your dissertation. Graduate students across all
disciplines spend a great deal of time worrying about
these expectations: What, exactly, does it means to make
an original or significant contribution in my field? Is my
project or its results important enough to be considered
original and significant? What, specifically, about my dissertation must be original or significant?
In talking with the faculty who participated in the
study, it became evident that the qualities of originality and significance are elusive and difficult to
define. Moreover, the terms are often shorthand
for the capacity to make an original or significant
contribution.
It is important to understand that the original contribution is not necessarily your entire dissertation
but something that is part of it. The faculty in the
study explained that an original contribution may
result from
OU PROBABLY NOTICED
asking or identifying new questions, topics, or

areas of exploration;
applying new ideas, methods, approaches, or
analyses to an old question, problem, issue,
idea, or context;
developing or applying new theories, theorems,
theoretical descriptions, or theoretical frameworks, or reinterpreting old ones;
inventing, developing, or applying new methods or techniques;
creating, finding, or using new data or data sets;
applying old ideas, methods, approaches, or
analyses to new data;
developing, modifying, or applying new
analyses, analytic approaches, frameworks,
techniques, models, or statistical procedures;
coming up with new ideas, connections, inferences, insights, interpretations, observations,
perspectives;
producing new conclusions, answers, findings,
or results;
combining or synthesizing things (facts,
knowledge, models of inquiry, problems,
sources, theoretical constructs) from other
fields or disciplines.
Originality
An original contribution offers a novel or new perspective. The faculty in the social sciences who participated
in the study described an original contribution as
something that has not been done, found, proved,
or seen before. It is publishable because it adds
to knowledge, changes the way people think, informs policy, moves the field forward, or advances
the state of the art.
To achieve this goal, you might develop an original
insight or advance, or you might borrow a contribution
from another discipline and apply it to your field for the
first time.
Your original contribution might appear in almost any

part of the dissertation. It can be a question, theory,
data, data source, method, analysis, or result.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 5

Degrees of Originality
There are, of course, levels or degrees of originality. At
the lowest level, originality typically involves applying
known methods or techniques to new data, materials,
or the like. Originality in this sense might make a small
or incremental change to the knowledge base and be
considered to have little consequence. At the higher levels, making an original contribution typically involves
asking new questions or applying new methods to old
or new problems and achieving results that are immediately recognizable as having consequence. Contributions such as these advance the field, are publishable,
and often appear in top-tier journals. At the very highest level, the contribution has the potential to change
the field. It is rare for a graduate student to make an
original contribution at the highest level. Indeed, few
faculty make contributions at this level.
Table 2.1 provides some examples, drawn from economics, psychology, and sociology, of what it means to
make an original contribution. As you consider these
descriptions, think about the questions you might ask
your advisor and committee members about their expectations and the potential of your project to create
new knowledge, take a new approach to inquiry, or explain or solve a social problem.
The expectations for originality also vary by subiscipline. In experimental or empirical fields, originality
usually involves generating novel information or data.
By contrast, in theoretical or historical fields, it could
be a new idea. However, your role in making an original contribution might be difficult to identify, especially if you are in a field that relies on a high degree of
teamwork, or if you are one of several students collaborating on an advisors funded research project. It is,
therefore, important to talk with your advisor about
your role in the project and how to identify your contribution to the field.
Understand Expectations
Because expectations for originality vary across disciplines, subdisciplines, and even advisors, it is important to ask your advisor and committee, from the start,
for clarification about what is expected of you. Ask to
see examples of what they mean when theyand others in the fieldcall something original. In your ongoing conversations, discuss specifically where, in your
project, you are most able to make an original contribution. Is it through, for example, your research question, theory, data, data source, method, analysis, or
5
result? Are you using an existing concept or method in
a new way? Discuss, as well, how you might best bring
your original contribution to the readers attention.
Significance
A significant contribution is defined primarily by its
consequences. As suggested by the descriptions provided by the faculty from economics, psychology, and
sociology who participated in the study (summarized
in Table 2.2), a significant contribution is of interest
and importance to the community and influences the
field by changing the way people think.
It is important to understand that significance is
typically determined, over time, by the disciplinary
community, not the individual advisor or committee.
Moreover, understanding and appreciation of a contribution often emerges, sometimes many years after
the fact. Sometimes a topic, issue, or approach is before its time; it does not immediately fit with prevailing knowledge or thought, but later it is recognized as
significant.
Although significance is frequently stated as a requirement for thePhD, graduate students rarely make
significant contributionsor are rarely recognized at
the time for making significant contributions. Faculty
do not typically expect them to do so. They look, rather,
for the capacity to produce a significant contribution in
the future.
The faculty who participated in the study described
a significant contribution as something that is useful
and will have impact, and is therefore publishable in
top-tier journals because it
offers a nontrivial to very important original

breakthrough at the empirical, conceptual,
theoretical, or policy level;
is useful and will have an impact;
causes those inside, and possibly those outside,
the community to see things differently;
influences the conversation, research, and
teaching;
has implications for and advances the field,
the discipline, other disciplines, or society.
As with originality, there are degrees of significance.
At the highest level, significance is a function of the
fields long-term interest in the problem, the difficulty
involved in solving the problem, the influence of the
results on further developments in the field, as well
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 6
Table 2.1 Original Contribution: Characterizations From Faculty in Economics, Psychology, and Sociology
Economics
An original contribution is something nontrivial that has not been done before, a deviation from or
a new way of thinking about an economic feature, issue, or problem. It advances knowledge and is
publishable.
It might result from
identifying a gap in the literature;

redefining or reconceptualizing old problems;
asking a new question;
making new connections among existing data;
using a new source of data or data set;
constructing or amalgamating new data;
applying old econometric ideas to new data;
applying new econometric ideas to old data;
applying, modifying, or developing a model or technique to solve a problem;
proving a new result;
proving a theorem using weaker assumptions;
challenging existing theories or policies.
Psychology
An original contribution is something that has not been done, shown, or made available before that
creates new knowledge and is publishable.
It might be
a new question, idea, insight, perspective, theory, model, technology, method, or finding;
a novel twist or approach to an old question;
an empirical or theoretical advance.
applying new, innovative, cutting-edge methods to existing theory;

synthesizing knowledge;
using or integrating something from another discipline;
generating new data;
analyzing existing data sets in new ways;
clarifying someone elses findings;
resolving issues or clearing up some confusion in the field;
making an empirical or theoretical contribution.
Sociology
An original contribution goes beyond what is known, offers new questions or contexts, opens new areas of exploration or a new angle on an old area of exploration, provides a fresh empirical focus to
some key theoretical puzzle or debate in the literature, takes an important next step, brings things together in a new way, or extends a debate or the current thinking on a particular topic.
It changes the way people think about a certain topic, leads to further research, is a meaningful
contribution, and adds to the literature.
identifying an unanswered question that resonates with a larger theoretical issue;
applying an established theory in a new context;
reframing existing data and shedding new light on them theoretically, substantively, or
methodologically;
challenging or reinterpreting existing theory or methods;
developing a set of concepts or ideas;
developing a new theory or method.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 7

as the degree to which the results affect other fields,
disciplines, and even society. At the lower levels, the
contribution is a small or incremental improvement. A
contribution is of little or no significance if people say,
So what? However, the most significant contributions are often ones that initiate a new trend or destabilize a conservative area, thus creating new questions
and new research agendas.
Table 2.2 summarizes the descriptions of a significant contribution provided by the faculty from economics, sociology, and psychology who participated in
the study.
Understand Expectations
Talk to your advisor and committee members about
their expectations for significance. Do so early in the
process, and continue this discussion as you progress.
Do they want to see a significant contribution in your
dissertation or do they want you to demonstrate that
you have the capacitythe knowledge and skillsto
make a significant contribution in the future? What
specific aspect of your project has the potential to make
a significant contribution? How can you best present
this contribution?
Table 2.2 Significant Contribution: Characterizations From Faculty in Economics, Psychology, and Sociology
Economics
Surprising, impressive, important, and useful, a significant contribution is worthy of publication in toptier journals because it causes people to see things in a different way and makes progress at the empirical, theoretical, or policy level. A big, useful, or relevant idea, it increases understanding of an economic
problem; challenges existing theory or policy; advances methodology and pushes the empirical frontier;
extends data or methods in a nontrivial way; provides greater validation of existing results; will have
wide applicability; cuts across many fields or disciplines; will be used by other people; or advances or
provides greater insight into the discipline or the world.
Psychology
A significant contribution is something that advances knowledge. It addresses or distinguishes between
competing hypotheses; influences theory development and research; leads to the modification of existing theory or hypotheses; eliminates a theory and provides support for another theory; offers interesting, meaningful, or counterintuitive results; has an application; is of interest to others and affects
their research; changes the discourse in the field; or affects future research.
Sociology
Surprising or unexpected, a significant contribution extends knowledge and pushes an area forward.
It does so by
studying something no one has studied before;

offering new findings, formulations, arguments, sets of comparisons, or methods;
using a richer and more extensive data set;
filling in some missing piece;
unlocking a term or phase and captures peoples imagination;
conceptualizing or articulating something better;
providing various confirmations or amendments;
clarifying a point in a debate;
shedding light on an issue;
identifying an important theoretical puzzle;
addressing an emerging social problem or question that has implications for the larger society;
educating people in the field;
opening up a new field.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 8
3
Aiming for Excellence in the Dissertation
tances, some
provided deoutstanding,
n the followhat they said
e these sumr, evaluating
es as you disd committee
goal for excelfort to develop
e the quality?
d by originalonsequences.
ure and masa richness of
rtant breakdissertations
ds, the exper. The quality
hniques and
s are rare
that often
ovide a very
bed an outphysical scithe higher
it
mportant
the scholarship of others to learn. But

in the process, you also make judgments about the
quality of their work. In the same way that you
make judgments about the scholarship of others, your
advisor and committee members make holistic judgments about the quality of their students dissertations.
However, your faculty advisors also read student
work with another purpose: They read to teach. They
must read carefully to see where they can suggest improvements in students conceptualization of the topic,
in their methods, in their presentation of results, and
in their writing.
Moreover, your advisors and committee read to certify quality. That is, they must make sure their students
dissertations demonstrate professional competence and
capacity for future professional-quality contributions.
In short, your advisors and committee are reading
your drafts and final version to determine whether your
dissertation is at a level of quality that demonstrates
your readiness to make the transition from student to
professional.
The faculty participating in the study provided descriptions of what makes a dissertation outstanding,
very good, acceptable, or unacceptable. In the sections
following, you will find summaries of what they said
about quality at these different levels. Use these summaries as a way to start planning and, later, evaluating
your own work. They are also useful guides as you discuss your project with your advisors and committee
members: Am I making progress toward my goal for excellence? Where do I need to make a special effort to develop
my dissertation? What might I do to improve the quality?
OU READ
Outstanding
Outstanding dissertations are characterized by originality, high-quality writing, and compelling consequences.
They show deep knowledge of a massive amount of
complicated literature and mastery of the subject matter. They display a richness of thought and insight, and
make an important breakthrough. The body of work in
outstanding dissertations is deep and thorough. The
student demonstrates a sophisticated grasp and use of
theory. In experimental fields, the experiments are well
designed and well executed. The quality and care put
into the measurement techniques and analyses instill
confidence in the results. The data are rich and come
from multiple sources.
Even though outstanding dissertations are rare
faculty see them once or twice a decade, if that often
the faculty in the study were able to provide a very
consistent set of descriptors. They described an outstanding dissertation in the social sciences at the higher
levels of originality or significance in that it
Degrees of Quality
Like published articles, completed dissertations have
been written and rewritten. The ideas and presentation
have been subjected to expert criticism and honed
through repeated drafts, feedback, and editing. And,
like published research articles and books, most dissertations are very good. A few dissertations are remarkable or outstanding in some aspect. On the other hand,
some dissertations are, for a variety of reasons, just
within the boundaries of the professions standards of
quality. They are good enough. In rare instances, some
dissertations are unacceptable.
asks new questions;

addresses an important question or problem;
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 9
Aiming for Excellence

uses or develops new tools, methods, approaches, or new types of analyses;
pushes the disciplines boundaries and opens
new areas for research;
has practical and policy implications;
is of interest to a larger community and
changes the way people think.
9
Other terms the faculty used to describe outstanding
dissertations were compelling, concise, counterintuitive, creative, elegant, engaging, exciting,
insightful, surprising, and thoughtful.
is very well written and very well organized;

exhibits mature, independent thinking;
displays deep understanding of a massive
amount of complicated literature;
exhibits command and authority over the
material;
challenges the literature and strongly held traditional views;
is thoroughly researched;
is synthetic and interdisciplinary;
clearly states the problem and explains why it
is important;
has a brilliant research design;
has well-planned and well-performed experiments (if experimental);
is theoretically sophisticated and shows a deep
understanding of theory;
has rich data from multiple sources
has a comprehensive, complete, sophisticated,
and convincing analysis.
Very Good
The very good dissertation is very good indeed. It fulfills the purposes of the dissertation requirement and
establishes the student as a capable social scientist. The
majority of the dissertations that faculty see are very
good, and this is the level they expect of most graduate students.
The faculty in the study explained that a very good
dissertation displays the students mastery of the field,
addresses a meaningful question or problem, and is executed competently. Although it might not hold the
promise of altering the field, it has the potential to
contribute to the field by expanding its knowledge and
thinking. The dissertation contains material for two or
three papers that could be published in top-tier professional journals.
More specifically, the faculty described a very good
dissertation as original or significant, making a modest contribution to the field. A very good dissertation
has a good question or problem. It shows understanding and mastery of the subject matter; uses appropriate,
standard theory, methods, and techniques; includes
well-executed research; demonstrates technical competence; presents solid, expected results/answers; and is
well written and well organized.
The faculty also described the outstanding dissertation

as having the potential to illuminate an entire area,
startle the field, or stimulate a lot of activity in the
profession. Indeed, the results or conclusions of an
outstanding dissertation push the disciplines boundaries and are publishable in the top-tier journals.
Along with offering new and significant knowledge,
an outstanding dissertation is a pleasure to read. It has
a point of view and a strong, confident, independent,
and authoritative voice. Each part of the outstanding
dissertation, from introduction through conclusion, is
excellent, and the pieces are integrated seamlessly. The
writing is clear and persuasive. The ideas are set out
very clearly and concisely. The writer anticipatesand
answersthe readers questions.
Outstanding dissertations were described as page
turners, surprising and edifying the reader. Readers often react with, Wow! Why didnt I think of that?
Acceptable
A dissertation that meets the basic criteria for the
award of the PhD is considered acceptable. Such a dissertation contains a sufficient amount of solid work to
demonstrate that the student can do research. It might
result in some conference papers, but it has little in the
way of publishable material, and what is publishable is
likely to be accepted by lower-tier journals.
The faculty in the study explained that an acceptable dissertation demonstrates technical competence
and shows the students ability to do research, use standard methods, and competently apply theory to a
problem. However, they noted, a student might display a narrow understanding of the field. For instance,
the student might present an uncritical review of the
literature that does not show insight or understanding
of what is important. The analysis might be unsophisticated or limited.
They explained that in its execution, the outstanding

dissertation
10
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 10
The acceptable dissertation shows little promise of
adding much to the field. It is not very original or significant because it is narrow in scope. It typically focuses
on a question or problem that is not interesting or has
predictable results. It might be a highly derivative, small
extension of someone elses work.
Sometimes a dissertation that is adequate may reflect
circumstances. In some studies, the hypotheses turn out
to be wrong or the results are not statistically significant,
meaningful, or important. Sometimes an acceptable
dissertation is the result of choices and compromises:
The student has accepted a job or post-doc position and
needs to sprint to finish. In such instances, the student
has achieved a primary purpose of graduate education,
which is getting a professional position.
More typically, however, an adequate dissertation is
the product of poor communication between student
and advisor, or inadequate advising. Because much of
this guidance should take place before you begin to
write the dissertation, it is important to talk soon and
in detail with your advisor and other faculty members
about your topic, your research question or problem,
your plan for researching it, the methods you will use
to collect and analyze data, the results you are getting,
and your interpretation of the results. Get early feedback on your plan for organizing your dissertation and
presenting your results.
In addition, be sure to get feedback on the quality of
your writing as you begin to draft the chapters. Because
strong skills in organizing and writing are a critical professional attribute, even if your dissertation is very good
or even outstanding in other respects, it will be considered only acceptable if you cannot communicate your
ideas clearly and effectively. Just as excellent writing enhances a solid piece of scholarship, weak writing undermines otherwise excellent ideas and research.
Unacceptable
It is your responsibility to produce professional-quality
work, and it is your advisors responsibility to prevent
unacceptable work from advancing.
As the faculty who participated in the study concurred, faculty advisors should provide the guidance
necessary to ensure that the dissertation meets professional standards. The advisor should make sure that
the student is working with a clearly defined question
or problem and must make sure that the student is using proper methods. The advisor should also provide
prompt and constructive feedback. It is also your responsibility to follow through on your advisors and
committees advice and guidance.
Work that is poorly written and full of errors and

mistakes or has other serious flaws is not of adequate
quality. The faculty in the study were clear that they
would turn back a draft if the question or problem
is trivial, weak, or unoriginal. Work that does not
demonstrate that the student understands the relevant literature and basic concepts and the key
processes or conventions of the discipline is unacceptable when
the literature review is weak or missing.
methods are used inappropriately, or incorrect
methods are used.
theory is missing, wrong, or not handled well.
hypotheses are inconsistent, do not flow from
theory, or are missing.
the data are flawed, misrepresented, fudged,
or wrong.
the results presented are obvious, already
known, unexplained, or misinterpreted.
the analysis is wrong, inappropriate, incoherent, or confused.
the conclusions drawn from the data are invalid
or oversold.
The faculty also described the unacceptable dissertation in terms of its presentation: The organization is
confusing and the writing is filled with spelling and
grammatical errors. They said that a dissertation that
violates standards of academic integrity through plagiarism, falsification of data, or misrepresentation of
data is unacceptable.
These problems should be caught early. Use the criteria in this booklet as a starting point for identifying
problems or as a way to plan improvements. If your
advisor and other members of your dissertation committee ask you to revise and rewrite, make sure you
understand specifically what you need to do to improveand make the improvements.
Examples From the Disciplines

The faculty in economics, psychology, and sociology
who participated in the study offered detailed descriptions of the dissertation in their discipline at these four
quality levels. As you consider the summaries of their
descriptions in tables 3.1 through 3.3, develop questions that you might raise with your advisor and committee about their expectations for quality in general
and for your particular project.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 11

Table 3.1 The Economics Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
Outstanding
Extremely well written; thoughtful, elegant, clever, compelling, and surprising; internally coherent;
chapters have a lot of substance; has the beauty of simplicity; has a lot of creativity, insight, originality, and independence; exhibits command and authority over the material; makes you look at something differently; addresses a very interesting question in a solid way; exhibits a deep understanding
of the literature and theory; challenges the literature and strongly held traditional views; contains a
very interesting theoretical component; integrates theory across fields; makes a theoretical contribution; constructs a new data set; develops or applies new tools, methods, models, or analytical techniques; exhibits incredibly good data collection and analysis skills; has a complete, comprehensive,
and convincing sophisticated analysis; solves a controversy or answers questions of interest to the
field; very practically useful for a lot of people; will fundamentally and radically change things.
Very Good
Original, insightful, integrated; may involve new and creative ideas and be well executed, but the
problem is not that interesting; some elements are surprising; has a good question or problem, but
the topic may not be of central interest to the field; good question but poor empirical execution; the
question is good, but the answer is not; the answer is good, but the question is not; an extension of
someone elses work; the hypotheses have not been developed in a theoretical way, are mainly statements about how the world behaves; lacks the theory needed to conceptualize the work; uses appropriate data collection and analytic techniques; uses advanced mathematical or econometric
techniques to analyze the data but cannot really interpret the results; provides convincing evidence,
but the analysis does not live up to the idea; has consistent results derived from well-formed assumptions but not contained in the assumptions; the outcomes are more or less predictable; does not push
the frontiers; does not really make a significant contribution; contributions are not as deep as they
might be; may readjust the way people think but does not fundamentally change things.
Acceptable
Competent, useful; adequately organized, investigated, and communicated but not particularly
clever or original; plausible but not compelling; shows some gaps in reasoning; directed, as opposed
to being independently researched; asks an old question; highly derivative, a correct, small, not exciting, extension of someone elses work; synthesizes other peoples work; has an interesting question
that is poorly addressed; does not exhibit a broad understanding of the subfield; does not place the
work in context; displays competence in applying theory to a specific problem, in collecting data, and
in managing and analyzing the data; applies an existing model to new data; uses a very restrictive
model to narrowly answer a question; has not really answered the question; results are believable but
the conclusions are not; student does not realize the depth or the significance of what he or she has
done; contribution is of minimal value to the profession.
Unacceptable
Trivial and poorly written; not thorough; lacks careful thought; too ambitious or idealistic; contains
errors or mistakes; misleading; has no introduction or literature review; does not understand the relevant literature; the question is not posed well; asks an inappropriate or unoriginal question; student
does not see that the question has an obvious answer; has a series of hypotheses not rooted in theory;
uses the wrong data set or analytic techniques; uses inappropriate or incorrect methods; uses a system
of equations that does not have a solution; cannot solve the problem; the problem has already been
solved; misinterprets the data; unable to explain the results; results are self-contradictory; overinterprets the results; student does not understand the implications of the results; cannot demonstrate the
conclusion.
11
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 12
12
Table 3.2 The Psychology Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Outstanding
Scholarly; solid, clever, coherent; interesting, persuasive, exciting; counterintuitive; paradigm shifting; well organized and well written; driven by intense curiosity; has an elegant, creative, and original idea and method; identifies a gap that no one else has identified that needs to be done; builds a
case in a linear, logical way; anticipates questions; very synthetic; interdisciplinary; looks at the issue
from multiple perspectives; eradicates the boundaries among the introduction, literature review, and
theory, and integrates them in a seamless, fluent, articulate way; has multiple components or multiple studies; draws on diverse literatures from different disciplines; presents the literature well and
shows the gaps; theoretically sophisticated; shows depth of understanding of theory and methods; involves a set of programmatic, linear experiments; experiments are designed to falsify a hypothesis;
uses very good, sound methods; develops complex stimuli; involves a new or massive data collection;
has an innovative analytical strategy; has compelling data and amazing results; the general discussion
ties it all together; publishable in a top-tier journal; changes the way people think; shifts the thinking
in the field; has policy implications.
Very Good
Novel, creative, coherent, independent but less ambitious and crisp; not highly unusual or exciting;
the obvious next step in a research program; done confidently but lacks sparkle; technically well presented; the introduction is tight but not particularly new or different; what is original is clear and laid
out persuasively; the model and hypotheses are well laid out and well tested; the methods are very
good but is not conceptually exciting; explores the range with which two variables interact and affect
the dependent variable; uses conventional methods and analyses; uses a new method or statistical application; the results are less crisp and clear; the experiment did not work out as planned; publishable;
does not reform the discipline.
Acceptable
Yeomanlike; correct; technically competent, meets the standard, not very interesting or exciting; executes what is planned, but the research may not work out as expected; an extension of the advisors
work or an in-depth examination of a single case; the questions are simple and reasonable but not exciting; lacks an introduction; has reviewed the literature and identified a gap, but the gap is not very
important; not critical of the literature and what needs to be done; hypotheses are strong enough and
consistent with the proposed model; the research design is simple; uses a reasonable method to answer the question; analysis is clear and appropriate, fits the hypothesis, and answers the question;
analysis does not explore all the possibilities present in the data; does not do a lot of exploratory or
additional analyses to clarify the interpretation of the main analysis; results are not important; discussion does not return to the original question, restates the results, does not identify what has been
learned; may not get published; will not change the way people approach the issue.
Unacceptable
Poorly conceived, wrong, sloppy; has logical flaws; does not do what student said he or she was going
to do; says things that readers believe are false; introduction is shoddy; misses major aspects of the literature; shows little understanding of the core processes; the model and hypotheses are inconsistent; the
methodological techniques are poor or flawed; fails to implement the necessary controls; data analysis
and results are inappropriate, inadequately reported, unexplained, misinterpreted, or contain errors; the
general discussion reiterates the major findings; explanations are not thought through clearly; jumps to
conclusions; has no synthesis or big picture context; does not see the next step; requires major revisions;
student fails to complete the revisions.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 13

Table 3.3 The Sociology Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
Outstanding
Well written; clear and concise; rhetorically very solid; fresh, novel, original, insightful, intellectually
engaging, creative, imaginative; well crafted and well executed; coherent, has a watertight argument;
the different components are connected in a seamless way; has a point of view and a distinct voice;
looks at some aspect of the field in a new way; tells a story and is a good read; grounded in a debate
but goes beyond it; a deep investigation that brings empirical focus to something hitherto unclear;
shows a unique, rich, in-depth understanding of the topic that leads to the generation of an important
question; thoroughly and creatively conceptualized; theoretically sophisticated, brings together theories or concepts in a creative way; has a brilliant research design; examines the questions through the
creative and innovative collection and analysis of rich data; uses several kinds of data to build the case;
presents results in a convincing and articulate manner; offers a meaningful or cultural interpretation
of the results; brings things together that had not been brought together before; student demonstrates
the ability to be independent; teaches the reader something; publishable in its present form; speaks to
a broader audience; has the potential to change the way people think about the problem.
Very Good
Solid; done correctly; follows the rules well; demonstrates technical competence; well written and
well designed; thorough; has a lesser degree of originality; not overwhelmingly brilliant; lacks a creative, broadly synthetic, innovative spark; seams are not quite as clear cut; the point of view is laid on
it; does not have its own voice; may be too rhetorical; may lack a core message or sense of what is critical; addresses an important and interesting question or problem but does not produce excitement or
surprise; theoretically and methodologically solid; integrates but does not advance theory; has a good
data set and a good set of observations; has enough appropriately analyzed data; weaves in the data;
offers useful findings; a good, normal science contribution to the field.
Acceptable
Demonstrates technical competence; all parts are there; shows student could be a professional in the
field; less well written; not much originality, passion, or excitement; less thorough; usually small scale;
not broad, focused, or integrated enough; not well conceptualized; arguments are spongy; consistent
across sections but has some loose ends; does not have all the subtleties and connections; literature review is very mechanistic; does not have command or grasp of the critical literature; shows poor comprehension of key areas of theory; has minimal or mundane theory; theoretical propositions are not
fully worked out; does not typically involve original data collection; the data set is inadequate for the
proposition; the right data are not collected; theory and data are not connected; the data are pedestrian; student is not in command of the data; the evidence is not plausible; the quantitative analysis is
very unsophisticated and elementary; has predictable results; student cannot step outside position of
participant and develop a critical, sociological perspective on the data; student exhibits trouble thinking like a researcher; peters out at the end; cannot answer the So what? question.
Unacceptable
Has major flaws; terrible writing; sloppy presentation; lacks depth of thought and coherent logic; inadequate or incorrect comprehension of basic concepts, poor conceptualization, execution, and
methodology; pure replication of another study; does not clearly define a problem or issue; weak or
no literature review; inconsistent use of references; student is unable to link bodies of theory to make
a theoretical argument; materials were poorly chosen; problem is poorly researched; data collection is
flawed; analysis is fundamentally flawed and poorly executed; uses inappropriate statistics; findings
are not relevant; evidence does not support the interpretation; interpretation is exaggerated; does not
link findings to the broader field.
13
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 14
4
Maintaining Consistent Quality
Within the Dissertation
N A SUCCESSFUL DISSERTATION ,
the parts work

together to form an integrated whole. Each piece
has a clear function and relates to the others. Taken
together, all the parts connect to form a coherent
argument.
Indeed, as the faculty members in the Making the
Implicit Explicit study talked about quality in the dissertation, they consistently talked about the quality of
the argument, using words like coherent and convincing. They described high-quality dissertations
as well organized: the student uses all the parts of
the dissertation to build and support a clear, overarching idea.
Because the expectations for the parts of the dissertation, their relationship, and importance vary not
only from discipline to discipline but within fields and
among faculty, it is critical to understand what your
committee expects or recommends regarding the tasks
and organization of your dissertation.
But first, understand the difference between the form
of the dissertation and the tasks of the dissertation. The
form is the structure, the parts or divisions. Think of the
form as the presentation. You accomplish the tasks, regardless of the dissertations structure. Think of them as
the substance.
called papers, articles or essays, depending on the

field); some of these papers may even have been already published. The student is expected to connect
the articles in a meaningful way. Faculty in some fields
or departments ask that the dissertation be organized
specifically by tasks, with section titles such as introduction or problem statement, literature review, theory, methods, results or analysis, and discussion and
conclusion. And some dissertations are structured thematically, with the tasks woven throughout the dissertation in a less clearly delineated way.
Thus it is very important to understand what, exactly, your advisors and committee mean when they talk
about chapters, literature review, or methods. Not only
do disciplines differ in their approaches, but each department and university has different requirements
that may be under review or in the process of being
revisedabout the structure of the dissertation.
Understand the Tasks

While there is no set formula for organizing the dissertation, there are, however, essential tasks that must be
completed regardless of how the dissertation is organized or whether the research is empirical, theoretical,
historical, qualitative, or quantitative. Through these
tasks, the student demonstrates his or her professional
skills and knowledge.
For example, at this point in your education you
should know the important literature in the field and
the state of current thinking about your topic. Your
task is to present this knowledge in the context of the
research question, to synthesize it, to do so succinctly,
Understand the Form

In your early conversations with your advisors about
your dissertation topic, it is important to be clear
about the requirements for the form of your dissertation. In some social science disciplines or department,
students present a collection of papers (they might be
14
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 15
15
Table 4.1 The Tasks of a Dissertation in the Social Sciences

Introduction/problem statement
Literature review
Theory
Method
Results/data analysis
Discussion and conclusion
and to offer this synthesis in service of your argument.

You might be required to present this information in a
section called literature review. If your dissertation is
a compilation of papers, you might not have a literature review section, but you will incorporate a review
and synthesis of the literature at appropriate points
within the papers.
Be aware that ideas about and requirements for the
various tasks of the dissertation vary not only by discipline, department, and university, but among faculty
members in the same department. Table 4.1 lists the
tasks that the social sciences faculty in the Making the
Implicit Explicit were asked to discuss.
Not only should all the parts of the dissertation fit
together and each task be addressed, but they should
also be of consistent quality. As we discuss each of the
tasks, we provide, in Tables 4.2 through 4.7, summaries of the descriptions of faculty from economics,
psychology, and sociology.
The Introduction
The introduction motivates the work and makes the
case for the research. The students task is to state the
problem, set the project in context, present the research question, and let the reader know the general
strategy for the argument. As a distinct chapter, the introduction often includes the literature review and
theory, and provides an overview of the entire dissertation. Many students write or rewrite the introduction
after all else is completed. In the paper-style dissertation, the introduction typically connects the papers
and identifies a common theme.
Literature Review
In the traditional-style dissertation, the literature review is typically part of the introductory chapter. In
the paper-style dissertation, each substantive chapters
starts with an introduction and a literature review. The
task of the literature review is not simply to summarize
the literature but rather to connect the problem to the

research on the topic, provide a context by synthesizing the history and controversies of the field, and
build a story that leads to the hypotheses. The process
of choosing the appropriate works to cite and of crafting an argument is not easy. However, doing so is an
important professional skill.
Theory
Theory is often part of the introduction and literature
review, but it may be its own chapter. The students
research question(s) should be linked to theory, and
theory should be used to select appropriate methods.
Method
The social sciences faculty made few general remarks
about the nature or role of the methods section in a
social science dissertation, in part because different
fields use different methods. Indeed, different fields
have different standards depending on whether students are collecting their own data or are using an
archival data set. In all cases, the methods used should
be aligned with the studys research question(s) and
theory.
Results or Data Analysis
In the social sciences, data analysis and results involve
taking raw materialquantitative or qualitative
dataand trying to make sense out of them. The goal
is usually to infer causality from nonexperimental or
correlational data. Consequently, the quality of the
tasks is a function of how complete the analysis is, the
techniques used, and the robustness of the results. The
section should tell the reader why a particular analysis
is being conducted and what the limitations are.
Discussion and Conclusion
The discussion and conclusion is typically the last section or chapter of a dissertation. Some faculty draw a
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 16
16
Table 4.2 Introduction in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
Outstanding
well written
brief, interesting, surprising, and compelling
motivates the work
has a hook
provides a clear statement of the problem
explains why the problem is important and significant
places the problem in context
presents an overview of the theory, methods, results, and conclusions
lays out the studys implications
provides a road map of the dissertation
Very Good
well written
interesting
has breadth, depth, and insight
motivates the work
poses a good question or problem
explains why the problem is important and significant
provides an overview of the dissertation
Acceptable
not well written or well organized

lacks or provides minimal motivation for the work
makes a case for a small problem
does not do a good job of explaining why it is interesting or important
provides minimum or poor context for the problem
presents minimal overview of the work
Unacceptable
poorly written and organized

provides little or no motivation for the problem
problem is not stated well, is wrong, or trivial
does not make the case for the importance of the topic
does not provide or does not put problem in a clear context
does not present an outline or overview of the research
contains extraneous material
distinction between the discussion and the conclusion: The conclusion summarizes and wraps things
up, whereas the discussion, which is more important,
should tie in to the introduction and put the work in a
larger perspective. Some disciplines and faculty consider
the discussion and conclusion task the creative part of
the dissertation, the place where the student has a
chance to draw independent conclusions about the
project and show what it means in the larger perspective

of the discipline.
The economics, psychology, and sociology faculty
who participated in the Making the Implicit Explicit
study had many insightful and specific comments
about the quality of the tasks of the dissertation in
their fields. You can find summaries of their descrip-
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 17

Table 4.3 Literature Review in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
Outstanding
Comprehensive, thorough, complete, coherent, concise, creative, up to date
The student
shows critical and analytical thinking about the literature

synthesizes a body of literature
integrates literature from other fields
displays understanding of the history and context of the problem
identifies problems in and limitations of the literature
selective (discriminates between important and unimportant works)
identifies and organizes analysis around themes or conceptual categories
student adds own insights
uses the literature to build an argument and advance the field
like a good review article
makes reader look at the literature differently
Very Good
Comprehensive but not exhaustive
The student
provides a thoughtful, accurate critique of the relevant literature

shows students understanding of and command over the most relevant literature
student selects literature wisely and judiciously
sets the problem in context, uses literature to build a case for the research
Acceptable
The student
provides adequate coverage of the literature

demonstrates that student has read and understood the literature
lacks critical analysis and synthesis
not selective (does not distinguish between more- and less-relevant works)
misses some important works
cites some works that are not relevant
an undifferentiated list (This person said this, this person said that.)
does not put problem in context
Unacceptable
Missing, inadequate, or incomplete
The student
has not read enough and does not cite enough sources.
misinterprets or does not understand the literature.
misses, omits, or ignores important studies, whole areas or literature, or people who have
done the same thing.
has not read the source or has only read the abstract.
cites articles that are out of date.
does not provide a context for the research.
17
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 18
18
Table 4.4 Theory in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
Outstanding
original, creative, insightful, innovative

simple and elegant
well conceived, logically consistent, and internally coherent
identifies and critically analyzes strengths and weaknesses
uses more than one theory or model
compares or tests competing theories
advances concepts
develops, adds to, revises, or synthesizes theory(ies)
aligns with research question, methods, and observations
has broad applicability
Very Good
complete and correct

uses existing theory well
informs the research question and measures
identifies where it works and where it does not work
Acceptable
The student
understands theory.
uses theory appropriately.
does not specify or critically analyze the theorys underlying assumptions.
offers hypotheses that do not derive logically from theoretical premises.
Unacceptable
Absent, omitted, or wrong, misunderstood, or misinterpreted
The student
cannot explain it or why it is being used.
uses theory inappropriately.
does not align theory with research question, literature review, or methods.
tions in Appendix A. Ask your advisors to be similarly

specific, if not more specific, about what constitutes
high-quality work in the tasks of the dissertation.
Above all, understand the form you are required to
use for your dissertation and the tasks you must address
within it. Take time to map out your argument and dis-
cuss in detail with your advisors and committee how

you will make the dissertation work as a coherent
whole. Discuss with them how each of the parts will
contribute to the argument. Study recent dissertations
from your department and see how the students made
the pieces work together.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 19

Table 4.5 Method in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
Outstanding
original, clear, creative, and innovative

provides a thorough and comprehensive description
identifies strengths and weakness/advantages and disadvantages
flows from question and theory
uses state-of-the-art tools, techniques, or approaches
applies or develops new methods, approaches, techniques, tools, or instruments
uses multiple methods
Very Good
appropriate for the problem

uses existing methods, techniques, or approaches in correct and creative ways
discusses why method was chosen
describes advantages and disadvantages
Acceptable
appropriate for the problem

uses standard or less-sophisticated methods correctly
provides minimum or sufficient documentation
shows basic competence
Unacceptable
lacks a method
uses wrong method for the problem
uses method incorrectly
methods do not relate to question or theory
confounded or fatally flawed
does not describe or describes poorly (insufficient detail)
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 20
20
Table 4.6 Results or Data Analysis in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
Outstanding
multidimensional
original, insightful, surprising
uses advanced, powerful, cutting-edge techniques
analysis is sophisticated, robust, and precise
provides justifications for each analysis
aligned with question and theory
sees complex patterns in the data
iteratively explores questions raised by analyses
results areusable, meaningful, and unambiguous
presents data clearly and cleverly
makes proper inferences
provides plausible interpretations
discusses limitations
refutes or disproves prior theories or findings
Very Good
Analysis is thorough, appropriate, and correct.
The student
uses standard methods.

produces rich, high-quality data.
links results to question and theory.
substantiates the results.
provides plausible arguments and explanations.
Acceptable
Objective, routine, and correct but not sophisticated
The student
aligns data and results with question and theory.

produces a small amount of thin data.
provides results that are correct but not robust.
includes extraneous information and material.
has difficulty making sense of data.
offers an interpretation that is too simplistic.
Unacceptable
analysis is wrong, inappropriate, or incompetent

data are wrong, insufficient, fudged, fabricated, or falsified
data or evidence do not support the theory or argument
data do not answer the question
interpretation is not objective, cogent, or correct
The student
cannot distinguish between good data and bad data.

cannot discern what is important or explain the results.
does not explain counterintuitive results.
explains away or buries results that are inconsistent with expectations.
makes improper inferences.
overstates the results.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 21

Table 4.7 Discussion and Conclusion in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels
Outstanding
Short, clear, concise, and creative; interesting, surprising, and insightful
The student
summarizes the work.

refers to the introduction.
ties everything together.
explains what has been accomplished.
underscores and explains major points and findings.
discusses strengthens, weaknesses, and limitations.
identifies contributions, implications, applications, and significance.
places the work in a wider context.
raises new questions and discusses future directions.
Very Good
The student
provides a good summary of the results.

refers to the introduction.
states what has been done.
ties everything together.
states its contribution.
identifies possible implications.
discusses limitations.
identifies some future directions.
Acceptable
The student
summarizes what has been accomplished.

repeats or recasts the results or major points.
does not address the significance or implications of the research.
does not place the work in context.
identifies a few, nonspecific next steps.
Unacceptable
Inadequate or missing
The student
summarizes what has already been said.

repeats the introduction.
does not tie things up.
does not understand the results or what has been done.
claims to have proved or accomplished things that have not been proved or accomplished.
does not draw conclusions.
21
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 22
5
HROUGHOUT THIS BOOKLET, we have offered

suggestions for achieving quality in your dissertation. The final table of the booklet, Appendix B, provides practical advice gathered from the
social sciences faculty in the study. We close with
some frank recommendations about the work ahead
of you.
choice, structure of the sentences) and the quality of

your argument.
Why is writing so important? The quality of your
ideas will not shine through poor or ineffective writing.
Regardless of how brilliant the ideas and how outstanding your research, if you cannot convey your ideas and
data clearly, concisely, and coherently, the reader will
not be able to appreciate their import. Likewise, if your
presentation is not well planned, if you cannot effectively map out and sustain an argument or make a case,
you miss an opportunity to share your knowledge and
contribute to the field.
Moreover, the mechanics of grammar and the style
of prose affect the perception of a works quality.
Many faculty believe that unclear writing reflects unclear thinking, and that a good researcher is also a
competent writer. Once you are out in the field, your
writing will be an indicator of the quality of your
thought and your attention to the details of research.
If your work is error laden, or you did not take the
time to plan and organize the presentation of the material, the reader will wonder, with good reason, how
careful you were in your research.
The faculty in the study spoke candidly about the
surprising amount of poor writing they see among
their graduate students, and some even suggested
that writing should be among the essential tasks of
the dissertation.
For these reasons, learning to write and communicate well is one of your professional responsibilities.
Furthermore, an expert is expected to be able to
communicate effectively about his or her field to a
variety of audiences. Your dissertation demonstrates
Practice Academic Honesty

By passing the dissertation, your advisor, committee,
department, and university are certifying that you
have the skills, knowledge, and disposition expected of
a professional in your field, which includes a commitment to integrity.
Honest use of data and sources is the fundamental
expectation of academic work. None of the levels of
quality described here matter if you plagiarize, deliberately misuse or misrepresent sources, or falsify data.
Such serious betrayal of professional standards puts
your degree in jeopardy. It could even be rescinded if
the dissertation is passed and then found to have
these abuses.
Develop Professional-Level Writing Skills

You probably noticed that writing is a constant item
in the summaries of faculty descriptions of quality. The
quality of your writing plays a large role in faculty
members assessment of the quality of your dissertation.
They are looking at the quality of your prose (word
22
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 23
your skill in communicating with your peers in the
discipline.
Take Action to Improve Your Writing

Although some graduate students, domestic and international, have problems with grammar, many also have
problems with compositionbasic structure and rhetoric. Some faculty report spending a great deal of time
working with students to improve the quality of writing
in the dissertationtime that should be focused on the
larger ideas.
You have made a considerable investment of time
and energy learning about your discipline. If the feedback on your papers for your course work, dissertation
proposal, or chapter drafts suggests that you need to pay
more attention to this skill, here is a plan of action.
Know good scholarly writing. Ask your advisor
or other faculty members to recommend the
work of a scholar whose writing is very clear;
read it not for the subject but for how it is
written.
Plan your dissertation. While you are working
on the dissertation, it is important to be clear
about what you want to say before you begin
to shape chapter sections, paragraphs, and
sentences. For example, make a map or outline of your dissertation and plot out the argument. Try it out by presenting it to other
students and faculty mentors. Use the map as
you draft the various pieces of the dissertation.
Plan the pieces of the dissertation. Decide how
you will organize each chapter. What are the
main points? In what order does the reader
need to know the information? What supporting data will you use, including charts, graphs,
tables, equations and other illustrations?
Write and revise. Understand the process of
writing. Approach the tasks of writing and
revising as separate activities, for they each
demand different skills. Although writing and
polishing at the same time might seem efficient, it is not. After you have drafted a piece,
set it aside for a while, and then review what
you have written and reshape it. Then go back
again, at another time, and polish the grammar
23
and prose by reading aloud what you have
written. You will be surprised at what you see.
Follow conventions. Find and use a handbook
of grammar and style; your universitys bookstore and library will have many. Ask other students and faculty members to recommend
books about academic writing. In addition,
know the style and formatting conventions of
your discipline. Many disciplines publish style
guides, with instructions for everything from
charts and tables to citation format and manuscript preparation. Some of these guides include discussions of grammar and punctuation
or suggest good sources for this information.
Major journals also provide guides for preparing manuscripts.
Get feedback. Although there are many things
you can do as your own editor, it is important
to seek and consider the feedback of others.
Go to the campus writing center for tutoring.
Join a writing group and work with your
peers. Ask a faculty member you respect to
work over a short piece of text with you; even
a half an hour in which someone edits your
work and explains his or her suggestions can
be extremely enlightening.
Practice writing and presenting your research.
Take advantage of opportunities to present at
conferences or campus research colloquia. Seize
opportunities to write and speak about your
field or project. The more varied the audience
the better.
Set the Bar

Having a clear target makes it easier for you to ask
questions, seek guidance, and make corrections. It also
makes it easier for your advisors to answer questions,
provide guidance, and suggest revisions.
The descriptions of quality presented in this booklet are benchmarks of excellence. You and your advisor
and committee might find it helpful to develop specific expectations of quality for your dissertation. Doing so will help them guide your work and will help
you use their feedback. If you and your advisors are interested in putting expectations for your dissertation
in writing, you might start with the general examples
24
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 24
in this booklet and customize them for your discipline
and project.
A larger question, though, is where to set the bar. You
and your advisors need to talk about finding the balance
between challenging yourself and setting realistic goals.
Discuss the level of quality they expect in the dissertation. Talk about your goals for quality and your professional aspirations (you might find it helpful to put these
thoughts in writing first, before the conversations). As
you set the bar together, keep in mind that the very
good that the faculty in the study discussed is the
equivalent of an A. Achieving that level of excellence is
an accomplishment that you can be proud of.
Engage Your Advisors
Above all, we recommend that you take the initiative
to speak with your advisors, committee members, and
other faculty members who mentor you, and that you
do so early in the process and frequently throughout
it. You are entitled to guidance about your dissertation
and to prompt and constructive feedback throughout
the process.
Know what you are aiming for and what you need to
do to meet your goals. Be clear about the tasks of the
dissertation and the expectations for quality for each.
Work with your advisor and committee to set a realistic
schedule that includes time to respond to drafts, especially early in the process. Meet the deadlines you and
your committee agree to.
When you meet, use their time and expertise wisely;
ask questions and make sure you understand their directions. Make the revisions your advisor and committee members ask you to makeor provide them with
reasoned justifications for not making them. If their
feedback seems contradictory or confusing, ask for
clearer or more consistent guidance.
Be proactive about solving any problems. That is an
important professional skill. If you feel stuck or unsure
about something, talk to your advisor, a faculty member
you respect, or other students. If you are not getting the
guidance or feedback that you need, bring it to the attention of someone who can help you, such as the program
head, department chair, or graduate dean. Dont withdraw and hope the problem will go away. Dont give up.
Persistence is also an important professional attribute.
Engage Your Peers

Use the process of writing the dissertation to develop
colleagues for the future. Sharing work with peers in
order to get honest and expert feedback is a habit
and skillyou should learn early. Form a group of
peers and meet regularly to check drafts, discuss problems and questions, and savor accomplishments.
Meeting regularly to discuss your work will help keep
you on track as you prepare to meet interim deadlines.
Applaud Yourself
No doubt, at every milestone in the process, you will
want to thank the friends and family members who are
supporting and encouraging you. They take pride in
what youve accomplished and the role they have played
in your success.
But remember, there is someone else who should be
congratulated: you. Even when you sometimes feel like
you are taking small steps up a big mountain, pause to
recognize how far you have come; you will be surprised
at the distance you have covered.
By pursuing the PhD, you are making an enormous
investment in yourself. Take time along the way to appreciate what your commitment to this effort says
about you, personally and professionally. The dissertation is a symbol of the hours and commitment that you
have devoted to the process. And when you have finished it and the dissertation is submitted and defended,
be sure to celebrate!
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 25
Appendix A
Tasks of the Social Science Dissertation
25
Introduction
Acceptable
Well written; very clearly states what

the study is about; raises a question
without context; clearly identifies the
techniques that will be used but does
not provide a good sense of the
economics
Not well organized or compelling;

lacks motivation; does not do a good
job of explaining why the problem
is important, or it oversells its importance; provides a general discussion
of the question or issues, but is insufficiently specific about the techniques
and results to come; has not pulled
the pieces together
Does not or cannot lay out the question;

shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the problem; fails to outline the
research; overstates what was done;
makes huge claims about the results
Page 26
Well motivated, very brief, and very

well written; compelling, penetrating
and insightful; motivates and prompts
the reader; sets up and articulates an
interesting question; provides a clear
statement of the problem; identifies
why the problem is important; relates
this body of work to other bodies and
identifies how it is different; provides
an overview of the dissertation; summarizes the methods, data, and results; like
an executive summary
Unacceptable
4:47 PM
Very Good
12/1/08
Outstanding
Literature Review
Outstanding
Short, concise, complete, coherent, and
comprehensive; focuses on the most directly relevant works; very analytical;
provides new insights into the literature;
insightfully synthesizes the literature;
shows how the literature relates to the
question; identifies problems and limitations in the literature; shows how the
research will advance the field
26
Table A.1 Tasks of the Economics Dissertation by Quality Level
Very Good
Coherent, thoughtful, and accurate
critique of the literature; sufficiently
comprehensive to set the context for
the research question; shows understanding of the literature and where
the research fits
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Cites most of the key literature; may

not be on top of recent literature, no
new references; may cite papers that are
not relevant to the question; does not
sufficiently synthesize the literature; a
listing, X found this, Y found this;
puts the problem in context; identifies
the students contribution
Sloppy mind dump; uses chronology as

an organizing principle; neglects an important paper that contains the result;
fails to cite important, relevant articles;
does not cite enough sources; student
cites sources he or she has not read (or
student has read only the abstract);
shows lack of understanding of important articles; just a list of names, This
person did this and this person did
that; does not clearly relate the
literature to the students contribution
Theory
Very Good
General, comprehensive, creative, original, simple, elegant, tidy; logically consistent and internally coherent; has
Appropriate; uses existing methods or

models well
Acceptable
Mediocre, very loose, or vacuous
theory; uses or regurgitates existing
theory; not well articulated, implicit
Unacceptable
Wrong, has errors, or not properly
adapted to the situation; student cannot
explain the theory; does not convince
APPENDIX A
Outstanding
Acceptable
rather than explicit; does not make
predictions based on the theory; does
not understand the limitations of
the theory
the reader that it is cogent or logically

consistent; clearly an afterthought
4:47 PM
Page 27
Methods
Outstanding
Well done; original, novel; carefully and
comprehensively documented, lays out
every step; indicates why the method or
technique was used; used appropriately;
makes and justifies judgments about the
procedures and the trustworthiness of
the data; identifies limitations and
potential weaknesses; flows naturally
from the theory; integrates the theory
and empirical work; gathers own data;
adds a new twist or application to existing methods; uses the best state-of-theart techniques; develops innovative new
methods or estimators; introduces an estimator from another area; contributes
to the theory of methodology
12/1/08
clever arguments; aligns well with the

question; provides intuition for the results; identifies the assumptions under
which the model works best and the internal limitations; borrows from outside
the field; applies in an area where no
one thought to apply it before; builds
on prior theoretical models; a new,
more abstract theory; a new theoretical
method for solving complicated
economic problems or policies; a unified model; a model that yields consistent information
Unacceptable
Very Good
APPENDIX A
Outstanding
Very Good
Important for that problem but does
not have applications beyond that
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Adequately uses the right methods for

the problem; uses existing, less sophisticated, or inferior methods reasonably
well; documented sufficiently so that
the reader can follow and replicate the
method; methods do not closely relate
to the theory
Uses the wrong methodology or tools to

address the problem; methods do not
relate to the theory; data are not handled
carefully; has mistakes
27
(continued)
Results/Data Analysis
Unacceptable
Well executed; robust, complete, meaningful, interesting, surprising; adds to

knowledge; has high-quality data; understands the data set inside and out,
including the shortcomings and limitations of the data; choice of model, statistical, and/or econometric tools is
convincing; uses a sophisticated or innovative technique to approach the
question; analysis is multidimensional,
interesting, and important; analyzes the
data in different ways and explains the
differences in results; develops a theory
to explain anomalies; provides a very
plausible interpretation of results;
refutes important prior findings
Well executed but not robust; demonstrates something believed to be true;

shows good understanding of statistical
and econometric methods; attempts to
link theory and methods; applies established methods to a new data set; goes
beyond the basic data set and makes
a convincing case; points out causal
relationships
Results do not seem very robust; uses a

scattershot approach to statistical analysis that is not closely aligned with the
theory; not clear that a causal relationship has been found; cannot clearly
state the limitations of the results
Data are wrong; full of errors; obvious

things are missing; ignores other available data; wrong, poor, or scattershot
analysis; accepts incorrect data coming
out of the computer at face value; magnitudes of the estimates are not
convincing; results are incomplete or
contradictory; results are wrong or trivial; results are not explained; counterintuitive results are not explained; results
that are inconsistent with expectations
are explained away or buried; makes improper statistical inferences; overstates
results; empirical findings cannot be
compared across chapters
Page 28
Acceptable
4:47 PM
Very Good
12/1/08
Outstanding

Very Good
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Short and concise; completes the argument; puts the work in context;
summarizes and brings the work
togethersets out the problem,
methods, theorems, and data; indicates
what has been learned; conclusions are
connected to the introduction; student
shows keen understanding and appreciation of the limitations of the work
and what can be done to strengthen it;
identifies the significance and applications for other audiences and fields;
has policy ramifications; talks about
future directions
Very short and well synthesized but is

not as strong as it could be; ties in
with the introduction and literature
review; compares what was known before with what is known now; conclusions are supported by the evidence;
shows an appreciation of the
shortcomings of the research
Absent or a little too thin; conclusions

are not supported by the results; overinterprets or oversells the results
Does not have a discussion; simply takes

the introduction and changes future
tense to past tense; insufficient
discussion of results; misinterprets the
findings; claims to prove things that
have not been proved
APPENDIX A
Outstanding
28
Table A.1
Outstanding
Acceptable
Less breadth, depth, and insight; presents well-articulated, interesting, and

important questions about gaps in
knowledge
No hook, poorly written, incomplete;

lacks structure; approach is formulistic;
does not make the case for the importance of the topic; premise fails to take
into account something that is already
known
4:47 PM
Gap argument for a derivative,

mundane project; has legitimate questions about gaps in knowledge, but
they may not be interesting; does not
try to make the case for or explain why
the question is original, interesting, or
the next logical step; does a poor job of
connecting the question with the literature and putting it in context
Unacceptable
Literature Review
Creative, incisive, comprehensive; sparkles; shows critical thinking about the literature; has breadth and depth;
uses the primary literature, including classic papers, to
make important points and generate hypotheses; has a
lot of theory in it; expansive, brings in different points
of view; not limited to the particular substantive area,
integrates material from related fields; shows where all
the pieces of the hypothesis come from; places the work
within a larger context; makes reader look at the literature in a different way
Very Good
Acceptable
A very critical review of the relevant literature; shows insight; has a theme or perspective; points out methodological flaws
in studies; compares studies and draws
connections between them; integrates
things in a new way; draws conclusions;
explains its relevance for the problem;
demonstrates that the student can use
the material, apply it to a problem, and
develop hypotheses
Adequate coverage of the literature;

mentions everything; talks about what
others have said; student does not put
himself or herself into it; a laundry list
of prior findings; lacks critical analysis
and synthesis; critiques are derived
from other people; makes obvious
points
Unacceptable
Page 29
Outstanding
Incomplete; misses or omits important

studies or whole areas of literature;
does not go back far enough in the
literature; leaves out the most recent
literature; does not make clear distinctions between theory and methods,
talks about them as if they were the
same; the literatures relevance to the
question and methods is unclear
Theory
Outstanding
Creative, original; has a theory; discusses and works
with more than one theory or model; articulates and
compares competing theories; shows how competing
theories are complementary; uses competing ideas to
make hypotheses and develop studies; identifies and
critically analyzes key theoretical assumptions and
boundary conditions; identifies the theories
implications for the study; advances theory
Very Good
Acceptable
Student has a sophisticated knowledge

of and ability to use relevant theories;
figures out where the gaps are in the
theories and extracts what is useful;
uses theory to inform the research
questions and measures; discusses how
observations are consistent or inconsistent with prevailing theory; suggests
how diverse observations can be pulled
together; makes some progress
No clear theoretical framework; provides

a laundry list of relevant theories; question is not integrated into a theoretical
perspective; does not critically analyze
the theories underlying assumptions or
boundary conditions; accepts theories at
face value; hypotheses are not logical deductions from theoretical premises; hypotheses do not synthesize multiple
theories or test competing theories
Unacceptable
Has no theory; does not have a good
guiding theory; theory is misunderstood, misclassified, or undeveloped;
overlooks a certain body of theory;
theory is unrelated to the literature
review
Methods
Outstanding
Applies methods in correct and

creative ways; describes why the
Acceptable
Shows basic level of competence;
method fits the problem; follows the
Unacceptable
Uses wrong or poor methods to answer
the question; has a major confound;
29
High quality; a well-designed experiment with proper

controls; has a level of complexity that goes beyond the
Very Good
12/1/08
Interesting, comprehensive, coherent, engaging, exciting,

surprising; has a hook; draws the reader in; well organized; states the problem and shows why it is important;
makes a persuasive, convincing case for the study; leads
to the hypotheses; provides an overview of the answers;
exhibits depth and breadth of understanding; puts forth
implications
Very Good
APPENDIX A
Introduction
Table A.2 Tasks of the Psychology Dissertation by Quality Level
(continued)
Methods
Outstanding
Acceptable
student is using a particular task, what

it does, and how it fits with the study;
creates new tasks; uses multiple measures of the same constructs; shows interest in convergent and divergent
validity issues
rules for samples, measures, and analyses; uses one measure for each construct
Unacceptable
uses an inappropriate population to test
a theory; does not have appropriate
controls or control groups; does not
have controls
12/1/08
obvious; has done some pilot testing to nail down the

characteristics of the methods; creatively applies an existing method to a new question; uses a new method;
comes up with useful measures
Very Good
4:47 PM
Outstanding
Acceptable
Appropriate; clear; does not conduct

supplemental analyses; leaves open
data analysis opportunities
Meets the standard of thoroughness or

comprehensiveness; has done the minimum analysis required to address the
original question; results go back to the
hypotheses; does not develop a meaningful story
Unacceptable
Page 30
Creative; uses proper, defensible statistical and analytical

methods; uses best, most powerful and most sensitive
analytic procedures to address the experimental question;
uses cutting-edge techniques; takes existing commercial
software and develops new models; applies newer and different models to the data set; provides information about
why each analysis is being conducted; analysis is thorough
and seamless; integrates among and across levels of analysis;
develops new ways to look at the data and makes the most
of the data; tells a story; makes a theoretical argument;
analyses map back to the hypotheses and answers the questions; shows curiosity through relentless exploration of the
data; iteratively explores questions raised by each analysis;
pays attention to detail; communicates analyses very
clearly; discusses the limitations of the analysis
Very Good
Analyses are wrong, inappropriate, or

not well matched to the research question; analyses are not reported
completely enough; presents the results
poorly; does not follow up on alternative interpretations allowed by the
analyses

Outstanding
Less of the same; does not close the

circle, does not come back to the
beginning and address the problem
Acceptable
Summarizes the results; provides a superficial interpretation of the findings;
references to the literature simply state
that the findings are consistent with
other peoples findings; has a rote discussion of strengths and limitations;
provides some very general directions
for future research that do not provide
structure for the next study; makes wild
speculations that have nothing to do
with the topic
Unacceptable
Shows lack of understanding and careful thought; the discussion and conclusion do not adequately reflect the
journey; a disconnect between data and
conclusions; restates the results without
providing any interpretation; misinterprets the results; interprets the results
beyond what the data allow; generalizes
too broadly
APPENDIX A
Deep, accurate, creative, enthusiastic; goes beyond summarizing the findings; draws things together; goes back to
the introduction; states the hypotheses and answers each
one; provides an in-depth account of the findings; develops a novel framework or explanation for unanticipated
results or results that have internal contradictions; goes
back to the literature and discusses the differences between
the students findings and other peoples findings; discusses
big surprises and the strengths and limitations of the current design or research; puts the study in a larger context;
says what it means for the rest of the field; identifies future
directions; speculates on why and how the field might
need to change; moves the field forward
Very Good
30
Table A.2
Acceptable
Well written but less eloquent; poses a

clear research question; expresses clarity of purpose; focuses on the key issues; good, solid but not surprising;
Workmanlike; reasonably clear and

focused; has a marginal hook but
is not exciting; conveys what the research is about; shows understanding
of the topic; provides an inkling of
the theoretical and methodological
approach; may leave something out
but does not say anything absolutely
wrong
Not grounded in anything; very defensive; tone is very politicized; takes

inappropriate stances; goes off on
incomprehensible tangents
Page 31
Short, focused, creative, and very synthetic; has a hook; states the problem
and shows why it is interesting and important; explains the significance of the
study; introduces the literature review;
sets the context; locates the project in
what has been done before; lays out a
thesis and an organizational structure;
provides a preview and a road map of
where the research is going and what is
in the coming chapters
Unacceptable
4:47 PM
Very Good
Literature Review
Outstanding
Very Good
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Demonstrates a grounded understanding of the literature; provides reasons for

looking at the literature differently;
draws on literature in a convincing and
supple way; brings together and summarizes a broad body of material and makes
meaningful distinctions without being
exhaustive; knows what needs to be cited
and what does not; analysis is organized
around themes; succinct; indicates the
significance of the research
Provides meaningful summary of the

literature; includes both classic and
recent citations; not a laundry list of
Smith said this and Jones said
that; demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the literature; takes a body
of material and leans it toward a particular direction; brings various intellectual resources to bear on the topic;
builds a case for the research and for
the hypotheses
Is ill conceived or seems wrong; not

analytical, integrated, or synthesized; a
stacked annotation, This person said
this and This person said this; just
regurgitates material; confusing; not
clear why some literature is being cited
and other literature is not
Omits people who have done the same

thing the student is doing; has not
looked at commonly understood bodies
of relevant literature; cites articles that
are out of date; misinterprets the literature; misquotes major theorists; shows
lack of understanding of the literature
and where this research fits in the field
Theory
Outstanding
Not discussed
Acceptable
Weakly understood; does not specify assumptions; shows slippage between the
conceptual apparatus and the problem
Unacceptable
No theory; completely unclear; ideas,
theory, and material are not aligned
31
Provides a good, logical, sensible,

coherent argument; clearly indicates
understanding of the major perspective;
shows up in the introduction, literature
review, and in the substantive parts of
the dissertation; is in the students own
language; relates to other traditions and
Very Good
12/1/08
Outstanding
Introduction
APPENDIX A
Table A.3 Tasks of the Sociology Dissertation by Quality Level
Theory
Outstanding
Very Good
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Unacceptable
12/1/08
other ideas; evaluates a specific problem

through a theoretical lens; evaluates
different theories; sees multiple levels
and multiple relationships; links observations to theory; uses conceptual ideas
in a creative way; synthesizes theories;
develops or creates theory
4:47 PM
Outstanding
Very Good
Appropriate, clever, original, thorough;

very well done; has basic validity;
student exhibits good judgment about
what needs to be said and what can go
in an appendix; connects questions and
theory with methods; does something
that ordinarily cannot be done; uses a
novel method or multiple methods
(triangulation); uses cutting-edge statistical techniques
More workmanlike; does not provide

lengthy definitions of techniques
already in the literature; use of a
different technique might have been
more appropriate or made it more
interesting
Appropriate, competent; no fatal

flaws; a rubber-stamped use of a textbook method; appropriate for the
problem; has basic validity; sample is
large enough but barely; uses a very
unusual group that does not represent
the average; yields a reasonably accurate answer; a different method might
have been better
Page 32
Methods
Fatally flawed; mismatch between
method and problem; student does not
seem to understand the method; uses
method improperly; the implementation
is inappropriate; no clear relationship
between hypotheses and variables; variables do not capture the concept; no
variance in one of the major variables;
measures are not valid or reliable; statistical techniques are inappropriate or
poorly explained
Outstanding
Very Good
Data rich; provides plausible arguments; student sees interrelations
that are not obvious; has rich
illustrations
Acceptable
Analyses are well executed but not sophisticated or substantial; data are not
rich; does not have enough substance;
is not clear that the data are really evidence of the concepts; findings are
null; provides too much information;
looses significant and important find-
Unacceptable
Marginal analysis of the data; student
does not know why the technique is being used; uses advanced techniques but
sees nothing in the data; has obvious
misinterpretations of the data; shows
every iteration of the model but cannot
discern what is important; mindless
APPENDIX A
Appropriate; uses advanced techniques;

interprets data properly; sees complex
patterns in the data; does a high-level
iterative analysis of the data; uses tables,
figures, charts, and maps to display the
data cleverly; makes clear links between
the conceptual apparatus and results;
(continued)
32
Table A.3
Very Good
ings in the midst of endless discussions

of insignificant ones; includes every regression equation
presentation of data without interpretation; uses graphic displays to create misleading perceptions; evidence does not
support the argument; results do not follow from the analysis and are interpreted
incorrectly; oversells or over generalizes
the results
4:47 PM
Unacceptable
Very Good
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Briefly summarizes what was done and

reaches into new areas and different
ways of seeing things; ties the whole
study together; shows that the questions,
methods, analyses, and findings are
consistent; connects to the theoretical
puzzles or debates the student started
with and takes them to another level;
underscores the findings; discusses
what is interesting and surprising
about the results; recognizes the studys
strengths, weaknesses, and limitations;
sees the big picture significance of the
work; speculates on and provides an
astute discussion of future directions;
has implications for the subfield, sociology, or social science
Discusses what is now known that

was not known before; shows the limits of the research; indicates where
future research might improve upon
what was done; proposes logical
follow-on research; focuses on very
specific findings and neglects to bring
out the general implications
Restates what has already been said;

summarizes rather than analyzes; overstates the results; does not see or generalizes to the big picture; indicates
that further research is necessary but
does not provide specifics
Just a summary; no conclusion; takes a

section out of the introduction and puts
it in the conclusion; oversells the results
Page 33

Outstanding
12/1/08
highlights the most important, original,

and significant contributions; goes
beyond supporting the argument and
disproves common theories
Acceptable
Outstanding
APPENDIX A
33
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 34
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 35
Appendix B
Advice for Writing a
Social Science Dissertation
Table B Writing the Social Science Dissertation
Introduction
State your question or problem clearly and concisely.

Discuss the importance of your problem.
Put your problem in context.
Discuss your methods, how your results were obtained, and how broadly applicable they are.
Identify your contribution and its significance.
Provide an overview of your entire dissertation.
Review and rewrite your introduction as necessary after writing your conclusion.
Literature Review
Model your literature review on a good review article.

Be selective, critical, and comprehensive in your review of the literature.
Read the primary literature, especially classic or commonly cited books and papers.
Include and cite the most important and relevant works.
Bring in relevant literature from other fields and disciplines.
Connect the literature to your problem.
Provide a context for your problem by summarizing and synthesizing the history and controversies that surround your problem.
Organize your literature review around themes.
Focus on concepts and ideas, not on who said what.
Present an analytic and synthetic discussion of the literature.
Include your own insights on the literature.
Use the literature to show what is missing in the literature and why your study needs to
be done.
Tell a story or build a story that leads to your hypotheses, if you have them.
Discuss how your study will advance the field.
Theory
Use theories that are appropriate for your problem.

Articulate your theory.
Link your theory to your research question(s), methods, and observations.
Understand and be able to explain the theory(ies) you are working with or developing.
35
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 36
APPENDIX B
36
Methods
Use the best, most appropriate cutting-edge methods or techniques for your problem.
Align and integrate your methods with your theory and research question(s).
Where possible and appropriate, use multiple methods to research your problem.
Document your methods thoroughly.
Provide a justification for each method or technique you use.
Discuss the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses of your methods.
Results and Analysis
Explain why each analysis is being conducted and what its limitations are.
Map your analyses back to your hypotheses and answer the research question(s).
Be thorough and correct.
Ask penetrating questions of your data.
Engage in supplementary analyses.
Explore questions raised by your analyses.
Look for and explain complex patterns in your data.
Use the data to make an argument, tell a story, or prove a point.
Provide a coherent introduction to and summary of your results.
Provide plausible explanations and interpretations of your results.
Take a deep breath and find the time and energy to write a solid conclusion.
Connect your conclusion to your introduction.
Tie all the pieces of your dissertation together.
Highlight the major points and findings of your work.
Draw independent conclusions about your research.
Discuss the significance and implications of your work for theory, research, or practice.
Place your conclusion in the context of the larger perspective of the discipline or society.
Identify the shortcomings of your research.
Anticipate and respond to criticism.
Identify new questions or next steps.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 37
APPENDIX B
37
DOS
DONTS
The Dissertation as a Whole
Master your disciplines subject matter.

Learn and internalize the professional standards of your
discipline.
Come up with a clearly defined researchable question or
problem whose answer/results will be important to your field.
Know the literature in your field and in related fields, especially as it relates to your dissertation topic.
Take the initiative to explore new ideas and new literatures.
Look at other fields and other disciplines for ideas.
Take the time necessary to fully develop your ideas.
Present your ideas clearly, concisely, and persuasively.
Do what you say you are going to do in your dissertation
proposal or something very close to it, but remember, ideas
evolve and so should your research.
Use proper research methods appropriately.
Anticipate and answer readers questions and criticisms.
Make the revisions your advisor and committee members
ask you to make or provide them with good justifications
for not making them.
Think of your dissertation as the biggest or best thing you

will ever do in your life.
Set an unreasonable quality level for your dissertation.
Outstanding dissertations are rare. Faculty expect most
dissertations to be very good. You can always expand and
polish your work after you receive your degree.
Expect your advisor to do your research or write your
dissertation for you.
Submit a manuscript containing spelling and grammatical
errors
Misinterpret or oversell your results.
Push for a defense if your advisor does not feel you are
ready to defend.
Introduction
State your question or problem clearly and concisely.

Discuss the importance of your problem.
Put your problem in context.
Discuss your methods, how your results were obtained, and
how broadly applicable they are.
Identify your contribution and its significance.
Provide an overview of your entire dissertation.
Review and rewrite your introduction as necessary after
writing your conclusion.
Put in a lot of extraneous material.

Go off on tangents.
Literature Review
Model your literature review on a good review article.

Be selective, critical, and comprehensive in your review of
the literature.
Read the primary literature, especially classic or commonly
cited books and papers.
Include and cite the most important and relevant works.
Bring in relevant literature from other fields and disciplines.
Connect the literature to your problem.
Provide a context for your problem by summarizing and
synthesizing the history and controversies that surround
your problem.
Organize your literature review around themes.
Focus on concepts and ideas, not who said what.
Present an analytic and synthetic discussion of the literature.
Include your own insights on the literature.
Use the literature to show what is missing in the literature
and why your study needs to be done.
Tell a story or build a story that leads to your hypotheses, if
you have them.
Discuss how your study will advance the field.
Discuss everything that has been written on your topic.

Overlook relevant parts of the literature.
Cite literature that is out of date.
Cite only books or review articles.
Take the literature at face value.
Present a descriptive summary of the literature devoid of
critical analysis of it.
Cite papers you have not read or do not understand.
Plagiarize or misuse your sources.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 38
APPENDIX B
38
DOS
DONTS
Theory
Use theories that are appropriate for your problem.

Articulate your theory.
Link your theory to your research question(s), methods,
and observations.
Understand and be able to explain the theory(ies) you are
working with or developing.
Omit theory.
Use the wrong theory(ies).
Use the theory(ies) or equations inappropriately.
Use the wrong method(s) for your problem.

Use methods inappropriately.
Omit necessary details.
Methods
Use the best, most appropriate cutting-edge methods or

techniques for your problem.
Align and integrate your methods with your theory and
research question(s).
Where possible and appropriate, use multiple methods to
research your problem.
Document your methods thoroughly.
Provide a justification for each method or technique you use.
Discuss the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses of your
methods.
Results and Analysis
Explain why each analysis is being conducted and what its

limitations are.
Map your analyses back to your hypotheses and answer the
research question(s).
Be thorough and correct.
Ask penetrating questions of your data.
Engage in supplementary analyses.
Explore questions raised by your analyses.
Look for and explain complex patterns in your data.
Use the data to make an argument, tell a story, or prove
a point.
Provide a coherent introduction to and summary of your
results.
Provide plausible explanations and interpretations of your
results.
Falsify, fudge, fabricate, or hide data.

Present data or analyses that are not relevant to the topic.
Present figures and tables without discussing them.
Use graphic displays to create misleading perceptions.
Make improper inferences.
Overstate your results.
Take a deep breath and find the time and energy to write a
solid conclusion.
Connect your conclusion to your introduction.
Tie all the pieces of your dissertation together.
Highlight the major points and findings of your work.
Draw independent conclusions about your research.
Discuss the significance and implications of your work for
theory, research, or practice.
Place your conclusion in the context of the larger perspective of the discipline or society.
Identify the shortcomings of your research.
Anticipate and respond to criticism.
Identify new questions or next steps.
Omit the conclusion.

Blow it off and write an insufficient conclusion.
Repeat your introduction.
12/1/08
4:47 PM
Page 39
Making the Implicit Explicit:

About the Study
is based in large part on a study

conducted during 20032004 at nine doctoralgranting universities. The study included focus
groups with 276 faculty in 74 departments across 10
disciplines representing the sciences (biology, electrical
engineering and computer engineering, physics/physics
and astronomy, mathematics), social sciences (economics, psychology, sociology), and humanities (English,
history, philosophy). The faculty were selected because
they had advised many doctoral students and served
on many dissertation committees. The average faculty
member chaired 13 dissertations and served on 36 dissertation committees.
Faculty from the following universities participated
in the study:
HIS BOOKLET
Syracuse University
University of Colorado at Boulder
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
University of Kansas
University of Southern California
The faculty were asked to describe dissertations in

their disciplines, and, specifically, to describe dissertations and the tasks of dissertations at four different
quality levels: outstanding, very good, acceptable, and
unacceptable. They were also asked to explain the purpose of the dissertation and what it means to make an
original and significant contribution in their discipline.
At the time of the focus group conversations, the 86
social sciences faculty whose responses are featured in
this booklet had chaired about 1,297 dissertations and
served on about 3,355 dissertation committees across
21 economics, psychology, and sociology departments.
On average, they chaired 14 dissertations and served on
39 dissertation committees.
Duke University
Michigan State University
Northwestern University
Stony Brook University
39

Developing Quality Dissertations in The Social Sciences

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Quality Dissertations in The Social Sciences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

17221-DQD-SocialSciences

Identifying the Purpose of the Dissertation

Understanding Originality and Significance

Aiming for Excellence in the Dissertation

Maintaining Consistent Quality Within the Dissertation

Appendix A: Tasks of the Social Sciences Dissertation

Appendix B: Advice for Writing a Social Sciences Dissertation

Making the Implicit Explicit: About the Study

The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions from Faculty in Economics,

Original Contribution: Characterizations from Faculty in Economics,

Significant Contribution: Characterizations from Faculty in Economics,

The Economics Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

The Psychology Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

The Sociology Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

The Tasks of a Dissertation in the Social Sciences

Introduction in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Literature Review in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Theory in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Method in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Results or Data Analysis in the Social Science Dissertation at Different

Discussion and Conclusion in the Social Science Dissertation at Different

Table A.1. Tasks of the Economics Dissertation by Quality Level

Table A.2. Tasks of the Psychology Dissertation by Quality Level

Table A.3. Tasks of the Sociology Dissertation by Quality Level

Writing the Social Science Dissertation

on your own dissertation, you

plicitly and publicly states its expectations about this

Why Explain the Dissertation?

Making Expectations Explicit

Using This Booklet:

Using This Booklet:

Focusing Students on Responsibility

toward professional excellence, and to work more efficiently and independently.

just beginning your graduate studies or have advanced standing in

HETHER YOU ARE

Faculty in the social sciences are currently giving serious

Starting the Conversation About Quality

dissertation with your advisor and committee and

summarized in Table 1.1, point to the dissertation as

Identifying the Purpose of the Dissertation

the terms original and

asking or identifying new questions, topics, or

Your original contribution might appear in almost any

Understanding Originality and Significance

offers a nontrivial to very important original

identifying a gap in the literature;

applying new, innovative, cutting-edge methods to existing theory;

Understanding Originality and Significance

studying something no one has studied before;

the scholarship of others to learn. But

asks new questions;

Aiming for Excellence

is very well written and very well organized;

The faculty also described the outstanding dissertation

They explained that in its execution, the outstanding

Work that is poorly written and full of errors and

Examples From the Disciplines

Aiming for Excellence

Table 3.2 The Psychology Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Aiming for Excellence

the parts work

called papers, articles or essays, depending on the

Understand the Tasks