Academics

​

 

 

Posting and Considerations of Dissertation Inclusions

 

 

          The second to last week has commenced (and went into post-course times). Only two weeks are left in this course, which includes this week and next week (at the original time, which continued through to the present post-course times). I want my dissertation through the Quality Review Final (QRF) successfully because there is no legitimate reason why that should not result by the successful end of a course (and its now-present times of post-course times), which is two years beyond the end of successfully completing the standard business doctoral program with an A grade level grade point average (GPA). Presently, my dissertation still shows a status in the Editorial Manager as “With committee” (and in post-course times "Under Review"), so I continue watching that status in this seventh week of this course (and continuing in these post-course times).

 

 

 

          I made the following comments after posting the previous paragraph. This second section took a little longer to complete,  so I did not include it in the original posting. I am presently including the completed posting. The main point is that my dissertation has included all the necessary elements to pass successfully through the QRF and to enable me to go into the full end of the business doctoral program and complete it successfully. My dissertation was built up and maintained as extensive development and contemplation went into it for a synthesized explanation in an enlightened contemplation manner.

 

 

“Synthesis and Argumentation/Higher Order Thinking” (University of Phoenix, 2014)

 

          Of course, my dissertation expresses a very high level of contemplation in articulating in scholarly fashion a major business problem that occurred through years and which is phrased as disengaging stakeholders (Lewis & Smith, 1993). A triangulation was included where three domains were each reviewed and then put together into the triangulation to reach an accurate outcome (Lewis & Smith, 1993). The business problem is addressed from history to the present and continuing to recommendations for solutions to in the near future advancing beyond the business problem described.

 

 

“Dissertation Proposal Development Knowledge” and “Library Research Skills” (University of Phoenix, 2014)

 

          My dissertation clearly exhibits knowledge formulation and library researching abilities with the various literary inclusions from more than 200 authoritative peer-reviewed journal articles in addition to other various features, such as publicly accessible websites (Baird, 1997; Black, 2012; Hadjioannou, Shelton, Fu, & Dhanarattigannon, 2007; Riqueime, 2006; Lyons & Doueck, 2010). Chapter two’s literary review delves deeply into the available published literature relevant to the topic area of stakeholders disengaging (Lamb & Johnson, 2009; Switzer & Perdue, 2011; Turrell, 1996). Chapter three continues with the knowledge advanced in the first two chapters and commences an in-depth analysis. This detailed analysis has its facts presented in chapter four. Chapter five concludes everything with a final analysis and ending recommendations for optimal continuance and advancing to alter stakeholders from excessively disengaging.

 

 

“Development of a Theoretical and/or Conceptual Framework” (University of Phoenix, 2014)

 

          The main theory worked with was stakeholder theory (Dean & Clarke, 2003; Kemoni, 2008). The theory was thoroughly described. The problem situation was put in the terms of the stakeholder theory. Other theories, such as contingency theory and agency theory, were reviewed, but explained was why stakeholder theory applied most. A thorough theoretical construction was built up through the whole dissertation, and various theories were also worked with through the dissertation but with a primary focus on stakeholder theory (Dean & Clarke, 2003; Kemoni, 2008).

 

 

“Understanding Methodology and Analysis – Qualitative and Quantitative,” “APA Skills” (University of Phoenix, 2014)

 

          The dissertation was made in a qualitative form (Steenkamp & McCord, 2007; Swenson, 1996). APA style formatting was used. A narrative was used to explain about much that was not previously known in the covered gap area, which was stakeholders excessively disengaging from their professional responsibilities. A case study was included to focus on the particular aspects and parties involved, and expanding enabled the study to go through with confidentiality and without any ethical issues. Enough numeric was included, and the encompassing qualitative analysis kept all content fully elaborated (Steenkamp & McCord, 2007; Swenson, 1996).

 

 

“Time Management/Independent Work Ability” (University of Phoenix, 2014)

 

          All timing was optimal, and work was done independently in addition to working with appropriate well known and understood publicly available literary materials (Powers & Swick, 2012). The peak quality use of time was in the short-term and the long-term. The quick work was done through all the times, which means that all the time goals were met. The long work was done, too, because this doctoral program went two extra years beyond it’s A grade level GPA ending times. Everything was done with peak efficiency, everything held up and was long-enduring, and much individual work had to be done, especially with the continuing problem area of stakeholders excessively disengaging through the times.

 

 

“Ability to Integrate Feedback” (University of Phoenix, 2014)

 

          What was said to be done was often done (Kumar & Stracke, 2007) . My dissertation went through a lot—much editing work (“Revising Your Dissertation…,” 2004). Specific efforts kept the dissertation from straying from the truth and its real and deep meaning (Vehvilainen, 2009). Every bit of information received relevant to the dissertation was worked with accordingly. After each occasion, the finished work was a finished quality product that included everything appropriate in the times.

 

 

“Communication and Relationship with Chair” (University of Phoenix, 2014)

 

          Appropriate and constructive communication was maintained with the dissertation committee chairperson and the rest of the dissertation committee members through the entire construction, development, and finishing of the dissertation (Cassuto, 2012; Derounian, 2011). Often the dissertation committee chairperson was worked with and communicated to consistently while the other dissertation committee members did not have to do anything. Other times, all the dissertation committee members had some work to do, such as when a full dissertation committee approval had to be obtained. The communication to the dissertation committee chairperson and the other dissertation committee members was made predominantly by email and in class postings, and additionally some telephone communication occurred with the dissertation committee chairperson (Cassuto, 2012). The dissertation committee chairperson and the other dissertation committee members were kept informed of what was going on with the dissertation and the doctoral program through all the times (Derounian, 2011).

 

 

“Oral presentation skills” (University of Phoenix, 2014)

 

          The dissertation led up to the oral defense (Messmer, 2000). Everything included in the oral defense was in the dissertation (Recski, 2005). The oral defense went through all the major components of the dissertation (Wasson-Blade, 2010). The oral defense was prepared to be done in times still before the dissertation went through the QRF. The oral defense had to wait until the work on the dissertation caught up, but at least the oral defense was ready for when reaching the times of the oral defense.

 

 

“PowerPoint presentation development” (University of Phoenix, 2014)

 

          Presentation skills functioned and increased their development. Presentations were throughout the dissertation, and the whole dissertation was one big presentation. The main presentation of the dissertation was oral defense slides. These slides were on PowerPoint (Clarke, 2005; Ellwood, 2005, & Mackiewicz, 2008). Further developing presentation skills continued through the dissertation’s work and also with the PowerPoint slides prepared for the oral defense (Clarke, 2005).

 

 

Conclusion

 

          My dissertation is in a finished form that is very advanced. The degree of advancement is far greater than this postings and considerations document. This document was very quickly put together, especially when compared to the dissertation. As expressed here, my dissertation includes all the required and standard components for a quality dissertation. The main necessity is for what is in and of my dissertation to receive its due recognition so that the QRF is successfully passed through, this current DOC-734A course completes successfully (as it did with an A grade I received for this course), and I move on to the oral defense and the full successful end of this business doctoral program.

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Baird, L. L.  (1997). Completing the dissertation: Theory, research, and practice. New

Directions for Higher Education, (99), 99.

 

 

 

Black, R. (2012). The dissertation marathon. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 5(2), 97.

 

 

 

Cassuto, L. (2011). Demystifying the dissertation proposal. Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(4), A36.

 

 

 

Cassuto, L. (2012). The dissertation defense: we're doing something right. The Chronicle of Higher Education, na.

 

 

 

Clarke, G. (2005). Powerpoint perfection. National, 14(5), 12.

 

 

 

Dean, G. W., & Clarke, F. L. (2003). An evolving conceptual framework. Abacus, 39(3), 279.

 

 

 

Derounian, J. (2011). Shall we dance? The importance of staff-student relationships to undergraduate dissertation preparation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 91-100.

 

 

 

Ellwood, J. (2005). Presence of Powerpoint: Why Powerpoint has become a cliché. Development & Learning in Organizations, 19(3), 5.

 

 

 

Hadjioannou, X., Shelton, N. R., Fu, D., & Dhanarattigannon, J. (2007). The road to a doctoral degree: Co-travelers through a perilous passage. College Student Journal, 41(1), 160-177.

 

 

 

Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470.

 

 

 

Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2009). The digital dog ate my notes: Tools and strategies for 21st century research projects. Teacher Librarian, 37(2), 77-81.

 

 

 

Lewis, A. D., & Smith, D. C. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice, 32, 131-137.

 

 

 

Lyons, P., & Doueck, H. J. (2010). Dissertation: From beginning to end. Oxford Scholarship Online, na.

 

 

 

Mackiewicz, J. (2008). Comparing Powerpoint experts' and university students' opinions about Powerpoint presentations. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 38(2), 149-165.

 

 

 

Messmer, M. (2000). Building your presentation skills. Strategic Finance, 81(7), 10-12.

 

 

 

Powers, J. D., & Swick, D. C. (2012). Research note: Straight talk from recent grads: Tips for successfully surviving your doctoral program. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(2), 389-394.

 

 

 

Recski, L. (2005). Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 5-23.

 

 

 

Revising Your Dissertation… (2004). Revising your dissertation - Advice from leading editors. University of California Press, 1-265.

 

 

 

Riqueime, L. F. (2006). From program completion to dissertation defense. ASHA Leader, 11(5), 7, 33.

 

 

 

Steenkamp, A. L., & McCord, S. A. (2007). Approach to teaching research methodology for information technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(2), 255-266.

 

 

 

Swenson, M. M. (1996). Essential elements in a qualitative dissertation proposal. Journal of Nursing Education, (35), 188-191.

 

 

 

Switzer, A., & Perdue, S. W. (2011). Dissertation 101: A research and writing intervention for education graduate students. Education Libraries, 34(1), 4-14.

 

 

 

Turrell, L. (1996). How to get the most from online public access catalogs. Media & Methods, 32, 10.

 

 

 

University of Phoenix (2014). Resources for students following completion of the dissertation readiness worksheet. University of Phoenix Material.

 

 

 

Vehvilainen, S. (2009). Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback and resistance in academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 185-201.

 

 

 

Wasson-Blade, K. (2010). Professional development: Enhancing our presentation skills. AMWA Journal, 25(4), 176-177.