· HOME· CHAPTERS · GLOSSARY· AUTHOR BIOS· HELP Chapter

· HOME
· CHAPTERS
· GLOSSARY
· AUTHOR BIOS
· HELP
Chapter 3
Sections
Chapter 3. Critical Thinking: The Means to InquireBy Helen
Zaikina-Montgomery
Essential Questions
· What does it mean for doctoral learners to think critically?
· What is metacognition, and how is it related to critical
thinking?
· Why do doctoral learners need to know how to engage in
critical thinking and metacognition?
· What are the main differences between academic and
nonacademic publications?
· What is comparative analysis and synthesis of literature?
· What are assertions, and how can researchers avoid making
them in scholarly writing?
Introduction
This chapter presents material about critical thinking,
metacognition, and comparative analysis of academic literature.
Critical thinking and metacognitive functioning include
cognitive processes, considered the highest level of Bloom’s
taxonomy (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956),
such as evaluation, analysis, and synthesis. The ability to think
critically about empirical research and findings as well as to
critically analyze one’s own writing is essential to the
successful completion of a doctoral program at Grand Canyon
University (GCU).
Critical thinking involves discipline as well as systematic and

unbiased evaluation of facts, using metacognitive strategies to
correct and refine one’s thinking processes. This chapter
outlines the components of critical thinking, provides examples
of how to apply critical thinking in daily life, and presents
examples of how critical thinking works in academic reading
and writing.
The chapter also presents a discussion of metacognition with
examples of the process and application. Finally, this chapter
includes examples of comparative analysis and synthesis of
academic literature and informs learners about how to critically
analyze the material they read. As learners at GCU progress
through the doctoral program, critical analysis and synthesis
become increasingly important skills to possess and demonstrate
in academic work.
Definitions of Critical Thinking
In higher education, critical thinking can be a great mystery,
with scholars and administrators failing to reach consensus on
how to teach, evaluate, and measure learners’ critical -thinking
skills. Colleges vary in their criteria of critical and reflective
thinking, but many still include both in important university
materials, such as the university or a specific school’s mission
statement. Specifically, the mission statement of the GCU
College of Doctoral Studies (CDS) highlights reflection as a
component of critical thinking:
The College of Doctoral Studies seeks to engage learners in the
process of becoming scholar-practitioners by deliberately
invoking design principles that create scaffold, embedded
curriculum grounded in adult learning theory. The College of
Doctoral Studies provides structured, integrative, learning-
centered doctoral programs which encourage reflective thinking
from learners and collaborative interactions among learners and
faculty. …” (Grand Canyon University, n.d., para. 4).
The mission statement is a central part of any university,
written with the intent of reflecting the fundamental goals and
beliefs of an organization. Authors choose each word in the
statement carefully when considering it for inclusion. With

respect to the College of Doctoral Studies, stakeholders
included the words reflective thinking for the purpose of
encouraging learners to engage this subset of the critical -
thinking process.
As early as 1933, Dewey defined reflective thinking as "Active,
persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed
form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it
and the further conclusion to which it tends" (p. 9). Over the
years, scholars have added to this definition. Rodgers (2002)
defined four critical attributes of reflective thinking:
1. Reflective thinking is a process whereby individuals make
meanings through their experiences. As one gains experience,
these meanings change and evolve as connections to other
situations and contexts are made.
2. Reflective thinking is based on the scientific method and is
rigorous and systematic.
3. Reflection needs to occur in groups or communities as
interaction with others is part of the meaning making process.
4. Reflection requires the commitment of individuals and groups
to learn and grow.
In sum, reflective thinking is a type of critical thinking;
therefore, the mission of CDS is to encourage learners to engage
in reflective, critical thought through a systematic, growth-
oriented process. With many universities, colleges, and schools
including the words critical thinking in mission statements, it
must be important; however, the notion of critical thinking
requires a definition before discussing and evaluating its
importance, process, and practice.
Defining Critical Thinking
Before a concept can be fully understood, it must be defined.
Definitions provide boundaries and guidelines for the essence
and development of a construct. Many scholars have defined
critical thinking over time. Beyer (1995) provided one of the
most concise definitions when he said that critical thinking is
simply reasoned judgment. In his book, Beyer (1995) further
explained that critical thinking involves deliberate and

disciplined thought to evaluate something, whether it is a
purchase at the market or a research paper argument. Other
scholars described critical thinking in terms of essential
processes. For example, Wade (1995) outlined eight components
of critical thinking:
1. Asking questions
2. Defining a problem
3. Examining evidence
4. Analyzing assumptions and biases
5. Avoiding emotional reasoning
6. Avoiding oversimplification
7. Considering other interpretations
8. Tolerating ambiguity
In academic writing, two of Wade’s (1995) components are
especially critical: considering other interpretations and
avoiding emotional reasoning. These two components of critical
thinking receive greater attention later in the chapter. Overall, it
is clear that critical thinking is an organized and rational
process.
Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for
Excellence in Critical Thinking.
The Foundation for Critical Thinking is a nonprofit organization
dedicated to promoting research, education, and support for the
development of critical thinking throughout the world. The
foundation’s work is mainly centered around integrating their
research initiatives with the creation of materials and classes
that will help educators develop their learners’ critical -thinking
skills. In 1987, the National Council for Excellence in Critical
Thinking issued the following definition of critical thinking:
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of
actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing,
synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or
generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or
communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary
form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend
subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision,

consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth,
breadth, and fairness. (para. 2)
While there is no one central definition of critical thinking, the
definition proffered by the National Council for Excellence in
Critical Thinking is one of the most comprehensive and relevant
to critical thinking in a scholarly setting and in higher education
(Wade, 1995).
Critical Thinking Process
Critical thinking follows a systematic process. This chapter
applies the definition of critical thinking developed by the
National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. Figure 3.1
presents a conceptualization of the critical thinking process.
Figure 3.1
The Critical-Thinking Process
Critical thinking is something individuals engage in every day
without formalizing it into the steps described in Figure 3.1. To
demonstrate the process of critical thinking, it is helpful to
apply the steps to a real-life situation. For example, if a person
is planning to host a dinner party, going through the steps may
look something like this.
1. Conceptualizing: Dinner party for 16 guests
2. Identifying and Applying: Identify the available resources,
including finances, space, type of food, availability of guests
(to set the date and time), food allergies and preferences of
guests and hosts, and any limitations to space (e.g., safety,
pets).
3. Analyzing: Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of
resources. For example, one may have enough money to host the
party, but not enough space or seating. One can cook any type
of food, except for vegetarian and three of the guests do not eat
meat or dairy products. Some of the guests are only available at
a time when one cannot host the party.
4. Synthesizing: In this step, one combines all of the
information from the Step 3 to evaluate whether the party will
take place. If the party takes place, will it be as it was

originally envisioned? Would significant changes need to be
made? Is the planner willing to make these changes?
5. Evaluating: Based on the prior steps, one can now
reconceptualize the dinner party in a way that it is feasible,
given the resources, limitations, strengths, and weaknesses of
the situation.
Critical thinking is a process that individuals use in everyday
tasks; however, thinking critically is more essential in higher
education and especially in the process of writing a dissertation.
Because the dissertation is a scholarly document, which requires
critical thinking, objective writing, and analysis of data, the
ability to carry out the critical thinking process is key in this
endeavor.
Critical Thinking in Academia
Critical thinking in academia is similar to critical thinking in a
real-life setting. In academia, however, scholars plan research
projects. They apply the same five steps described above to
planning a research project or writing a review of the literature
on a topic. For example, if a scholar wanted to write a section
of a literature review on the challenges teachers face in
incorporating technology in the classroom, the writer follows
these steps:
1. Conceptualizing: Review of literature about the challenges
teachers face in incorporating technology in the classroom.
2. Identifying and Applying: Identify the available resources,
including prior knowledge of the topic, scholarly articles about
this topic, and the availability of those sources (i.e., perform a
literature search in the library).
3. Analyzing: Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the
resources. Read each article, and identify the conclusions made
by the authors. Are these conclusions valid? What are some
strengths and weaknesses of the research method, design, data
collection? Is the article trustworthy? Are there other articles
that contradict the results, and what is the nature of those
articles?
4. Synthesizing: In this step, the researcher combines all the

information from Step 3 to evaluate the common or divergent
message about the topic. What is the common theme? Do
teachers, in fact, experience challenges with incorporating
technology in the classroom? If so, then what is the nature of
these challenges? Are there two points of view and divergent
evidence about this issue?
5. Evaluating: The researcher can now reconceptualize his or
her stance on this issue or go back to the problem under study in
the research project to amend it to incorporate the information
identified in the critical analysis of this issue.
In conclusion, critical thinking is a process comprised of
several key steps that the thinker must undergo in a logical,
orderly manner. In dissertation reading and writing, these steps
involve conceptualizing the literature on the topic, identifying
the available literature resources, and applying them to the
dissertation topic, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of
available studies, synthesizing the information that is available
on the topic, and finally evaluating the quality, quantity, and
relevance of this information.
Critical Thinking in Practice: Being a Critical Consumer of
Research
·
Research is everywhere. The majority of political, marketing,
consumer, and health care decisions use the outcomes of
research; however, the abundance of research creates a
difficulty in terms of choosing which research results are valid,
trustworthy, and usable. Too often, individuals rely on the
media and news to report findings of research while taking for
granted that these findings come from valid, ethical, and
controlled scientific studies. In order to be a critical consumer
of research, it is useful to follow several practices.
The first step to becoming a critical consumer of research is to
develop a skeptical mindset. Most readers of publicly available
research outcomes or reports are not academics or statisticians;
however, everyone can practice a skeptical mindset when it
comes to reading and evaluating research. While the

word skeptical may carry a negative connotation because it
could mean doubtful or mistrustful, in the case of research
consumerism, the term carries a cautious connotation. Being
skeptical when evaluating research findings means being
cautious about the source, sampling, procedures, and goals of
the original research or reporting sources.
The second step in becoming a critical consumer of research is
to develop a set of questions to ask about each piece of research
or research results encountered. Some of these questions might
be:
1. What is the source of information?
2. Who funded the study/research? What, if any, are the specific
interests of the funding source?
3. What is the purpose of the research?
4. What are the research questions?
5. Who makes up the study sample, and are these individuals
able to provide the information necessary to meet the purpose of
the study?
6. What type of instruments did the authors use to collect
information? Do these instruments allow the authors to gather
the type of data necessary to answer the research questions?
7. Are the results and conclusions correct based on the data that
were gathered?
8. What is the real impact of these research findings?
9. How many people took part in the study (i.e., 70% of 20 is
much smaller than 70% of 2,000). For example, in a study of the
relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and their
principals’ leadership, if a statistically significant relationship
is found in a group of 20 teachers, it is less meaningful than in
a group of 2,000 teachers.
Being equipped with these questions when encountering
research reported on television, on the Internet, or in peer-
reviewed sources, in particular, will help facilitate a critical
evaluation and consumption of research as opposed to a
consumerist “blind faith” approach to research findings.
Finally, in order to be a critical consumer of research requires

active engagement in thinking about the research findings
reported or encountered. After reading or hearing about the
results of a study, spend just a couple of minutes assessing
whether there are any questions. Active thinking means asking
questions about the study, considering points of confusion or
contention, and deciding whether the reported results contain
sufficient answers to those questions or whether more questions
than answers remain. Lastly, it is important to be aware that
each research study contains some margin of error and the
findings of each study have limited generalizability (i.e., they
cannot be applied to all people in all circumstances).
Critical-Thinking Process in Academic Writing
Prior to discussing the critical process in academic writing, it is
relevant to define and distinguish academic writing from other
types of writing. In essence, academics and scholars in the field
conduct academic writing to report the findings of research
efforts. The tone of academic writing is formal without the use
of slang, colloquialisms, or abbreviations. The language used in
academic writing is formal, and each word is chosen for a
precise purpose. Academic writing is always written in third
person and requires a deductive thinking approach. In academic
writing, all assertions are supported with scholarly references.
Nonacademic writing, on the other hand, can be personal,
contain impressions or persuasive language and does not require
citing, references, or sources. Newspaper articles, blogs,
fiction, and autobiographies, and some nonfiction works are all
considered nonacademic writing. Nonacademic writing, written
in an informal or personal tone, often contains colloquial
language, slang, or abbreviations. Almost all writing that
individuals encounter in everyday life is nonacademic writing.
It is perhaps not surprising that, in order to apply critical
thinking to academic writing, doctoral learners must organize
and prepare their thoughts to journey through the writing
process. In their work on improving critical thinking in
biological sciences through the use of writing, Quitadamo and
Kurtz (2007) suggested that simply writing with the use of

critical-thinking prompts helps increase critical-thinking skills
among learners. Keeping in mind the critical-thinking process
outlined above and key components of academic writing, the
following process of self-monitoring academic writing may take
shape.
Figure 3.2
Critical Thinking Process in Academic Writing
Examples of critical analysis. Thus far, this chapter has
established the importance of critical thinking and critical
analyses in academic writing and dissertation work. How
exactly, then, does a researcher perform critical analysis? It
may be advantageous at this point in the chapter, to examine an
example of critical analysis of a peer-reviewed academic article.
The next sections of this chapter present a discussion of peer -
reviewed sources and synthesis of critical analyses through
examination of one academic work.
For example, a hypothetical study uses the central problem
statement: “It is not known, if and to what degree, self-efficacy,
math aptitude, and IQ correlate with academic success among
gifted elementary school children.” In order to examine
literature relevant to the problem, the researcher might find the
peer-reviewed academic article titled, “Gifted Girls in a Rural
Community: Math Attitudes and Career Options” (Lamb &
Daniels, 1993). Considering the abstract allows the researcher
to determine the merit of a full read of the article. In this case,
the abstract of the article indicates a quasi-experimental or
experimental study with a control group conducted with some
amount of rigor, which makes it eligible for a review and
inclusion in the dissertation literature review section.
Sample Abstract
“Gifted Girls in a Rural Community: Math Attitudes and Career
Options”
This study was designed to determine the feasibility of
improving gifted girls' attitudes toward mathematics. This study
was conducted in three school districts in an isolated rural

setting. Subjects were 24 gifted girls in Grades 4-7. A control
group also contained 24 gifted girls at the same grade levels. On
pretest, using the Mathematics Attitude Inventory (MAI), no
significant differences were found between groups in their
attitudes toward math. The intervention program included
problem-solving activities, math-related career options, and
self-esteem issues. MAI posttest scores after the 18-week
program indicated that the program was effective in changing
attitudes toward mathematics of gifted girls in a rural
environment. (Lamb, J. & Daniels, R., 1993)
The first step in the critical analysis process is to read the study
and get an overall impression of the procedure and the results as
well as the conclusions the authors draw from the results. The
next step is to break down the different components of the study
and critically analyze each component. Table 3.1 presents an
example of the type of questions researchers ask when
performing a critical analysis of a peer-reviewed article.
Table 3.1
An Example of Critical Analysis of a Peer-reviewed Article
Component
Example from Study
Example of Critical Analysis
Generalizability
of Findings
The purpose of this study was to determine if an intervention
program implemented in an isolated rural setting and designed
to improve gifted girls’ attitudes toward mathematics would
produce positive math attitudes.
Forty-eight girls identified as academically gifted ranging from
fourth to seventh grade participated in this study.
Generalizability of the findings may be limited because only
girls from rural schools participated in the study. The findings
cannot be generalized to urban schools.
Study results are only applicable to upper elementary and mid-

junior high school girls. Cannot generalize to other age groups.
Sample Size
and Source
Twenty-four girls from one school comprised the experimental
group that received the intervention program. The control group
consisted of 24 girls from the remaining two schools.
Is the sample size large enough to produce a valid experimental
effect if there is one? What is the effect size in the study? Some
of the girls (experimental group) came from one school, but the
control group was comprised of girls from different schools.
Were there differences in teaching for these groups of girls,
which can account for some of the effects?
Design
… the schools are demographically close—within an 18-mile
radius. Each school is located in a small community (i.e., 3,000
or less in population). Similarities in socioeconomic status of
the three communities are consistent: Each contains small
merchant businesses, small factories, and crop farming.
A quasi-experimental design using a pretest, posttest, and
control group was used for the study so that control for threats
to internal validity of maturation and selection was established.
The participants were matched on some of the extraneous
factors, such as population density and socioeconomic status.
This is a strength of the study.
The groups were randomly assigned to treatment conditions, and
there was an attempt to examine preexisting differences to
ensure that these girls were not unequal from the beginning.
This is also a strength.
Instrumentation
To control for possible variations between the control and
experimental groups, a pretest using the Mathematics Attitude
Inventory (MAI) (Sandman, 1980) was administered to all 48
gifted girls. The MAI is a 48-item, self-rating scale. According
to Sandman (1980), the test reports attitude toward math

teachers, anxiety toward math, value of math in society, self-
concept in math, enjoyment of math, and motivation in math.
Eight questions in each of the six categories comprise the self-
rating scale. Each question was answered according to a four-
point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly
disagree).
What type of instrument is this? Is this a validated instrument?
What was the original purpose for which it was developed?
Have other researchers used it? What is the reliability and
validity of the scales?
Statistical Analyses
A statistical analysis using t-test scores revealed that there were
no significant differences between the experimental and control
groups’ scores for all six categories on the pretests. The total
mean scores for the pretests, as measured by the MAI, were
140.38 for the experimental group and for the control group,
resulting in a t-test score of 0.26.
Previously, the authors state that there were six categories
(subscales) in the instrument measure. Were pretest differences
tested for each subscale or only the total score? How is the
original instrument scored? Is a total score possible? Was a
correction (e.g., Bonferroni) applied to the alpha level when
multiple t-tests were used?
As demonstrated in the Table 3.1, performing a critical analysis
of one peer-reviewed article is a multistep process, which is
detailed and time-consuming. Learners often wonder why their
doctoral courses and dissertation take such a long time to
complete. A partial answer to this is that each academic source
that is included in a class assignment and dissertation must be
critically reviewed for inclusion by examining and outlining its
strengths and weaknesses and then, synthesizing information
about all sources on a particular topic in the dissertation
narrative.
The type of sources that are included in academic writing and
the dissertation are of paramount importance. As discussed
earlier, writers of nonacademic sources do not write with

sufficient rigor, discipline, or peer-review for inclusion in a
dissertation. For example, an editorial piece from the New York
Times or Newsweek cannot be included in a dissertation
because it is not possible to critically or academically evaluate
it. The next section of this chapter provides a discussion of
what constitutes a peer-reviewed source and why these sources
are important in a dissertation.
Peer-Reviewed Sources in Scholarly, Critical Thinking
The term peer-reviewed is one of the more misleading academic
terms that learners in higher education encounter. According to
the Merriam-Webster dictionary (Peer, n.d.), peer is defined as
“one that is of equal standing with another” (para. 1).
According to this definition, if one is a doctoral learner, then a
peer-reviewed scholarly source is one reviewed by their peers
(i.e., other doctoral dissertation learners).
What is Peer Review in Academic Writing?
Similar to the features of academic writing outlined previously
in this chapter, peer-reviewed scholarly articles from academic
journals, also called refereed journals, are written for a specific
audience (usually scholars in a particular field), contain a list of
references or works cited, use formal language, and include
specific terminology used in the academic field for which the
article is written. By contrast, nonacademic articles are written
for the use of the general public, use common or colloquial
language (to widen their appeal to the largest possible
audience), and may not use references or works cited to support
their content.
The Lloyd Seale Library at the John Jay College of Criminal
Justice (Lloyd Seale Library [LSL]; 2017) has an excellent
article about the peer-review process and the questions learners
should ask when evaluating whether an article is peer reviewed.
In academic publishing, the purpose of the process of peer
review is to evaluate the quality of an academic work and to
ensure that it meets the standards of a particular academic
journal or publication. Before an article is published, it is
submitted to the journal for peer review, which includes the

following:
· The author of the article must submit it to the journal editor
who forwards the article to experts in the field. Because the
reviewers specialize in the same scholarly area as the author,
they are considered the author’s peers (hence “peer review”).
· These impartial reviewers are charged with carefully
evaluating the quality of the submitted manuscript.
· The peer reviewers check the manuscript for accuracy and
assess the validity of the research methodology and procedures.
· If appropriate, they suggest revisions. If they find the article
lacking in scholarly validity and rigor, they reject it. (LSL,
2017, para. 1)
Peer-reviewed or refereed journals will not publish content that
does not meet their criteria; therefore, a benefit of reading,
evaluating, and citing literature from peer-reviewed sources is
that writers can be sure that they are examples of the best
standards and practices in the given academic field. The
importance of peer review in academia is discussed in further
detail in the next section of this chapter.
The Importance of Peer Review
In 2015, Elsevier, one of the world’s premier providers of
scientific, academic, and technical information, began holding
an event called Peer Review Week. The goal of this event is to
recognize, explain, and honor the academic peer-review process.
During the first Peer Review Week, Elsevier requested that PhD
learners submit blog entries sharing their experiences with the
peer-review process. Roganie Govender, a PhD student at
University College London Hospital submitted an informative
essay in which she outlined why the peer review is important.
Govender (2015) used the acronym TRUTH to outline five
properties of peer review.
· Time to reflect: Scholars are able to reflect on the work of
others and to use their own knowledge to help others improve
and refine their work.
· Research quality: Simply stated, the process of peer review
helps to uphold the quality of published research, similar to

product ratings on shopping websites that helps consumers to
make decisions about what to purchase.
· Understanding ethical responsibility: The published research
makes an impact in the lives of people and on the decisions that
are made in the field of publication, such as education,
medicine, and mental health, among other fields.
· Training: Being a part of the peer-review process helps one
train to become a better researcher. Regardless of which side of
the process one is on, whether taking part as a student, author,
scholar, or reviewer, the peer-review process offers an
opportunity to train and grow as a researcher.
· Helping each other: peer review is an opportunity to help other
scholars in the field to improve and refine their work, which can
offer a greater benefit to the scientific community.
Admittedly, Govender (2015) delineated relevant aspects of the
importance of peer review. Nonetheless, many scholars agree
that the true value of peer review lies in safeguarding the
quality of scholarly research while helping scholars broker
value for their work with their respective schools, colleges, and
programs, many of which have a scholarly publication
requirement (Lawrence, 2003; Rennie, 1999; Vandenbroucke,
1998).
How to Identify Material that has been Peer-Reviewed
To evaluate whether a scholarly article comes from a peer -
reviewed journal, Lloyd Seale Library (2017) outlined the
following features of a peer-reviewed article. These questions
are helpful to ask about each article one may encounter for
inclusion in the dissertation.
1. Is the journal in which the article was published or sponsored
by a professional scholarly society, professional association, or
university academic department? Does it describe itself as a
peer-reviewed publication? (To know that, check the journal's
website).
2. Is there a citation for the article in one of the databases that
includes scholarly publications? (Criminal Justice Abstracts,
EBSCOhost Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, etc.)? Read

the database description to see if it includes scholarly
publications.
3. Was the search limited to scholarly or peer-reviewed
publications?
4. Is there an abstract (summary) at the beginning of the article?
5. Is the tone of the article thoughtful, restrained, and serious?
6. Does the article have footnotes or citations of other sources?
7. Does the article have a bibliography or list of references at
the end?
8. Are the author's credentials listed?
9. Is the topic of the article narrowly focused and explored in
depth?
10. Is the article based on either original research or authorities
in the field (as opposed to personal opinion)?
11. Is the article written for readers with some prior knowledge
of the subject?
12. If the field is social or natural science, is the article divided
into sections with headings such as (Introduction, Theory or
Background, Literature Review, Methods, Subjects or
Participants, Results, Conclusion, Discussion)? (Lloyd Seale
Library, 2017)
·
Another way to ensure that an article comes from a peer-
reviewed scholarly source is to select the peer-reviewed option
in the library search. In the GCU library, it becomes available
after the list of articles on the selected topic comes up. This
option is located on the left-hand side of the page. The "Finding
Empirical Research Articles" tutorial may also be helpful.
Figure 3.3
Peer-Review Option in Library Search
Finally, there are databases that provide listings of peer -
reviewed or refereed journals. One such database is Ulrich’s
Periodicals Directory, accessible through the GCU library for a
searchable listing of peer-reviewed sources, which the user can
then access through the GCU library. Other sources for

determining whether a journal is peer-reviewed include
the OMICS International searchable database of open access
peer-reviewed journals and the Directory of Open Access
Journals (DOAJ).
Another point of possible confusion is the nature of open-access
journals. Consequently, an explanation about what open-access
journals are and how they work can be of advantage. The
words open access often erroneously express a lack of peer
review in a given academic journal. This is simply not
true. Open access in the world of academic publishing means
that anyone can access the materials published in that journal.
Open-access journals do not charge such a fee for access to
published materials, meaning that access to that journal’s
publications is open to anyone who would like to read them.
The emergence and popularity of open-access journals directly
relates to the increased ease of Internet access throughout the
world. By contrast, a journal that is not open access requires
users to pay a subscription fee for access to the journal.
Therefore, when a student, faculty, or scholar accesses a journal
article through a university library, if that journal is not open
access, the university has purchased a subscription to the
journal.
Why Unpublished Dissertations and Theses are not Considered
Peer Reviewed
Outside of peer reviewed sources in both refereed and open-
access journals, there is a third source that learners often
attempt to cite as a scholarly reference: unpublished master’s
theses or unpublished doctoral dissertations. Published in
ProQuest still means unpublished!These sources are not
considered peer reviewed and should be cited in a limited way
(one or two per dissertation document) or not at all. At no time
should a doctoral researcher base the main problem, purpose,
and research questions of a dissertation on an unpublished
master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation. If one cannot avoid
using an unpublished master’s thesis or dissertation in
dissertation work, the only appropriate place for it is in the

literature review chapter as a part of a larger synthesis of
literature on a particular topic.
The research community does not consider master’s theses and
doctoral dissertations as peer-reviewed sources for a relatively
simple reason. As one may have noticed from previous
discussion, the peer-review process is a fairly standardized
process performed by professionals in the field. Professionals
are individuals who have earned the highest credentials, such as
PhD or MD degrees. To this end, the research community
considers a master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation the work of
individuals not yet professionals in their fields.
·
Moreover, the process of review for a thesis or a dissertation is
not standardized, but rather depends on the practices of the
university where the student completed the thesis or dissertation
work. Some universities, such as GCU, have a peer-review
process similar to that used by peer-reviewed journals. At GCU,
all student work and doctoral dissertations are subject to a set
of standards, which include academic integrity, original
research, and a meaningful contribution to a body of research on
a given topic. To ensure that all dissertation documents meet
these standards, dissertations at GCU undergo a peer-review
process composed of a set of several reviews by objective peer -
reviewers in addition to the reviews performed by the learner' s
dissertation committee, which includes a dissertation chair,
methodologist, and a content expert. GCU doctoral learners
undergo the review and approval of the proposal and
dissertation by the three-person committee as well as peer-
review by CDS reviewers. This multitiered peer-review
approach ensures university standards are met while
eliminating bias from any one reviewer.
Other universities may have only a committee supervising the
student in their master’s or doctoral work, and the make-up of
these committees varies greatly by institution. Because of this
this vast variability of the conditions under which the thesis or
dissertation are written, it is neither possible to ascertain the

quality of the work nor to ensure the rigor of the document.
Given that each university has a unique standard for their
graduate learners’ work, it is not possible to consider
unpublished master’s theses and dissertations peer reviewed.
Metacognition
Definition
Metacognition, simply defined, is thinking about one’s own
thinking; however, this definition may be too simple. The
metacognitive process is not something one is aware of until
after it happens. As readers have seen thus far in this chapter,
critical thinking requires an organized, methodical, and logical
thought process. Similarly, the metacognitive process within the
dissertation journey requires attention and discipline from the
thinker.
Metacognitive Knowledge
There are divergent views with regard to the differences and
similarities between knowledge and metacognitive knowledge.
For instance, when asked to explain the reasons for their
actions, people tend to report their preconceived reasons, not
the actual reasons that prompted them to act (Nisbett & Wilson,
1977). Additionally, research on implicit memory and
knowledge indicates that knowledge and metaknowledge, or
metacognitive knowledge, may be separate constructs (Yzerbyt,
Lories, & Dardenne, 2009).
What, then, is the difference between simple knowledge and
metacognitive knowledge? Table 3.2 addresses this question.
Table 3.2
General vs. Metacognitive Knowledge
Knowledge (Cognition)
Metaknowledge (Metacognition)
A person is thinking about doing the laundry. This knowledge
will allow the person to be able to do the laundry again in the
same way it was done last time.
A person is thinking about how he or she did the laundry the
last time. This type of thinking (knowledge) can help the person
change the things that did not work last time (e.g., mixing

colors and whites, forgetting the laundry in the washer).
As can be seen, metacognitive knowledge is similar to critical
thinking; it is an automatic critical-thinking process of sorts.
Metacognitive knowledge allows one to improve on thinking,
planning, and processes. According to Flavell (1979, 1987),
there are three types of metacognitive knowledge:
· Person Knowledge – an individual’s knowledge about
themselves as a person.
· Task Knowledge – an individual’s knowledge about
performing tasks and the relationships between the purpose,
steps, and structure of a given task.
· Strategy Knowledge – “how-to” knowledge to determine how,
when, and where to use certain learned strategies for performing
a task.
The interplay between these components of metacognitive
knowledge is the process known as metacognitive regulation.
Learners use task knowledge to address committee feedback
about their dissertations. As an example, a student receives
feedback from the dissertation chair and begins addressing this
feedback in a step-by-step order, from beginning to end. After
spending some time addressing feedback, the learner encounters
a comment from the chair that contradicts or negates several
previous comments already addressed by the learner. The
learner activates metacognitive task knowledge when, after this
experience, the learner receives another round of feedback, but
instead of addressing it from beginning to end, this time, the
learner reads all the feedback and sorts it into types of issues
noted by the dissertation chair. Then, the learner addresses each
issue holistically as opposed to addressing individual
comments.
Metacognitive Regulation
For learners, at any juncture of their education, the two more
salient components of metacognitive knowledge are task and
strategy knowledge. The life of a learner is a life of completing
tasks, measured according to a criteria (grade), and taking steps
and strategies to complete them (assignments and projects) (see

Figure 3.4). Therefore, metacognitive regulation is paramount
in learning because it allows the learner to build upon prior
knowledge and to modify strategies based on what did and did
not work in the past. In this way, metacognitive regulation is
similar to scaffolding. Scaffoldingis the process of using prior
knowledge to develop new knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978; Wood,
Burner, & Ross, 1976). When researchers work on a novel
problem, one of the ways they can approach solving the problem
is by applying scaffolding.
Figure 3.4
Metacognitive Regulation Process
Metacognitive Strategies
There are many metacognitive strategies that learners can
employ when reading academic resources or writing academic
narrative text. These metacognitive strategies usually work best
before or after a cognitive activity; however, some strategies
function well during writing or reading. Perras (2014) outlined
the following in her post on the [email protected] resource
website created for educators in Ontario, Canada.
All learners, but especially learners who are beginning a less
familiar educational endeavor, such as a dissertation project
should use these strategies until they develop automaticity and
are able to incorporate these practices into their reading and
writing behaviors. Common metacognitive strategies for reading
and writing academic material include skimming and scanning,
slowing the pace of reading, invoking prior knowledge,
connecting ideas, and even drawing pictures (McElwee, 2009).
McElwee also explains preferred opportunities to use those
strategies in academic work. As an example, learners use the
strategy of activating prior knowledge when reading a peer-
reviewed article and evaluating that article for inclusion in a
dissertation literature review section. Consider the following
sentence from an article:
Some researchers have suggested that instructional scaffolding
might improve the effectiveness of SSR, but there have been no

studies of the effects of scaffolded silent reading nor
descriptions of how this scaffolding of silent reading might be
accomplished (Hiebert, 2006). (Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, &
Smith, 2008, p. 194)
Applying the metacognition strategy of activating prior
knowledge to this sentence, the learner asks what he or she
knows about instructional scaffolding or has read about
instructional strategies in the past.
Through application of such questions, the learner potentially
remembers reading an article in the process of searching for
literature to include in the dissertation. The article authors
performed a study on instructional scaffolding in out-loud
reading. The learner now incorporates the sentence above into
the larger knowledge base about instructional scaffolding in
reading so that when encountering another article on this topic,
both pieces of information serve as prior knowledge. This type
of reflective thinking is encouraged and nurtured by graduate
programs and at the forefront of graduate course work at GCU
as outlined in the CDS mission statement at the beginning of the
chapter.
Comparative Analysis and Comparative Research
In the last section of this chapter, we will discuss comparative
analysis and research and what it means to synthesize rather
than report results and facts in one’s writing. The term
comparative analysis emerged out of the scholarship and
practice of business, finance, and economics and is defined as
“the item-by-item comparison of two or more comparable
alternatives, processes, products, qualifications, sets of data,
systems, or the like” (Comparative Analysis, n.d.). In its
adaptation to the practice of academic writing, the term refers to
presenting an argument or describing research about a given
problem topic with the description and analysis of all relevant
research and points of view, not just that of the author.
The term comparative research in the social sciences means that
the research methodology includes an attempt to examine
differences across different demographic variables of people.

For example, a researcher conducts comparative research
through a correlational study performed with nurses
(Demographic 1) on the correlation between their job
satisfaction and their leader’s management style and then
extended to a replication study on the same topics among
teachers (Demographic 2). Because not all research studies
include a wide variability in the demographic factors of their
participants, another aspect of comparative research requires
designing studies in such a way that permits the generalization
of results across a wide variety of individuals. This allows for
maximum benefit derived from a research effort.
While research-study design exceeds the scope of this chapter,
this section of the chapter includes a discussion of comparative
analysis in terms of the presentation of academic literature in
academic writing and some of the key features of comparative
analysis in scholarly writing. Some of these key elements
include synthesis rather than reporting, objectively
demonstrating a position in academic writing, and avoiding the
use of assertions and emotion words.
Synthesis Rather than Reporting
Along with critical thinking and critical analysis, synthesis in
academic writing is essential and simultaneously challenging
for learners to understand and learn to practice. Often,
especially when writing large sections in which literature on a
specific topic is discussed, such as a literature review section or
even a problem statement in their dissertation, learners tend to
report rather than synthesize. Generally, this is not because
learners want to get it wrong, but rather, because they may not
know how to get it right. The sections that follow define both
synthesis and reporting and discuss the importance of synthesis
in academic writing.
Synthesis Definition and Strategies
In academic writing, synthesis is composed of two essential
components. First, synthesis uses multiple sources in the form
of academic articles all written about a particular topic. Then,
the researcher presents information from these sources

including parallels between the articles by comparing and
contrasting them with one another. Finally, the researcher
presents what all of these articles say about a given topic when
taken holistically. Figure 3.5 illustrates these ideas.
Figure 3.5
Two Components of Synthesis in Academic Writing
Using Multiple Sources Centered Around a Particular Topic
· Synthesizing articles on one topic may take two or more
paragraphs.
· Usually, some details of articles are provided, but only the
most salient details with regard to method, sample size,
analyses, and conclusions.
· There is no lengthy reporting of exactly what happened in
each study.
· Each article is a piece of the puzzle.
Drawing Parallels Between the Sources and Making Conclusions
About
How These Sources Together Inform the Topic
· Parallels can be in the form of similarities, contrasts, and
differences.
· Some of the findings may be contradictory or similar.
· A synthesis is the entire puzzle put together; it is a story that
is told by all the articles reviewed around a particular topic.
There are two types of synthesis in academic writing, each
having a distinct purpose. One type of synthesis is
explanatory. Explanatory synthesis helps readers understand a
topic. This type of synthesis is common in dissertation writing
in such sections as the literature review, where the writer’s task
is to familiarize the reader with literature on the main topics in
the dissertation. Another type of synthesis is argument
synthesis. Argument synthesis presents the writer’s point of
view while supporting it with a synthesis of information from
scholarly material. This type of synthesis is more common in
problem statements, discussions, and conclusions sections of
dissertations.
Writers employ many techniques to write a synthesis piece of

literature on a topic. In academia, specifically in dissertation
writing, three approaches remain common: the several reasons
approach, strawman approach, and compare and contrast
approach. Figure 3.6 illustrates these ideas.
Figure 3.6
Three Approaches to Synthesis in Academic Writing
Synthesis Example
Below are some examples of synthesis using the several reasons
and strawman approaches, respectively. Note how the several
reasons synthesis can be easily transformed into a strawman
synthesis. Keep in mind that proper synthesis in academic
writing takes practice and revising—a first draft is never going
to be perfect.
Several Reasons Synthesis Example
Teachers are struggling with incorporating technology in the
classroom. [This is the main idea sentence.] Researchers have
presented evidence that incorporating technology in education is
one of the more challenging undertakings for a teacher in the
20th century classroom. [This foreshadows the argument letting
the reader know evidence from the academic literature to
support the main argument follows.] In a study on identifying
the best computer games for classroom learning, Karoui,
Marfisi-Schottman, and George (2017) discovered that teachers
often do not know which features of video games are best for
demonstrating specific learning in the classroom. [The writer
has now presented the first reason for why the argument is
valid]. Australian teachers in a study about creating a more
engaging reading environment for middle school reading lessons
stated that while they feel technology such as tablets and e-
books is an excellent addition to course curriculum, one of the
challenges they experience is a lack of technology skills to
incorporate these devices (Clary, Kigotho, & Barros-Torning,
2013) [The writer has now presented a second reason for why
the original main idea is valid. The writer can continue adding
evidence in this manner.]

Strawman Synthesis Example
classroom. [This is the main idea sentence.] However, school
leadership often expects teachers to bring technology into their
classrooms with ease on a short timeline. [This is the argument
against the argument—the straw man] In a study on identifying
the best computer games for classroom learning, Karoui,
Marfisi-Schottman, and George (2017) discovered that teachers
often do not know which features of video games are best for
demonstrating specific learning in the classroom. [The writer
has now presented the first reason for why the argument is
valid]. Australian teachers in a study about creating a more
engaging reading environment for middle school reading lessons
stated that while they feel technology such as tablets and e-
books is an excellent addition to course curriculum, one of the
challenges they experience is a lack of technology skills to
incorporate these devices (Clary, Kigotho, & Barros-Torning,
2013) [The writer has now presented a second reason for why
the original main idea is valid and can continue adding evidence
in this manner.]
Reporting Definition and Examples
Often, instead of synthesis, learners simply report the findings
of articles on a given topic. While this style of writing is
appropriate at the secondary education level and is taught in the
lower post-secondary setting (i.e., junior college and pre-
baccalaureate education), simply reporting information in
written form is not sufficient for dissertation-level learners.
Reporting in academic writing is restating the findings of
scholarly, peer-reviewed sources in one's own words or through
direct quotations. Direct quotation is not an appropriate
technique in dissertation writing. A great example of reporting
in scholarly writing is the annotated bibliography. There are
many variations in annotated bibliography styles, but the main
purpose of the annotated bibliography is to read academic
articles and restate the main points or details with the goal of
understanding the content of the work and whether it is

appropriate for inclusion in a given assignment or a
dissertation.
Reporting is much easier than synthesis. For a comparison,
consider the reporting example below and compare it with the
synthesis example above. Both include the same scholarly
sources. Note how the reporting example simply lists one study
after the other without synthesizing the material to relate to the
main idea presented in the beginning of the paragraph.
Reporting Example
classroom. Karoui, Marfisi-Schottman, and George (2017)
performed a study in which they examined the pedagogical
effectiveness of mobile learning games (MLGs). The authors
compared several MLGs for features that make them easiest to
use. They identified the best computer games for classroom
learning and discovered that teachers often do not know which
features of video games are best for demonstrating specific
learning in the classroom. In another study by Clary, Kigotho,
& Barros-Torning (2013) on creating a more engaging reading
environment for middle school reading lessons with Australian
teachers, researchers aksed teachers what they thought about
incorporating technology such as tablets and e-books into their
classroom. They concluded that teachers feel that technology
may be beneficial for dynamic literacy learning, but teachers
are hesitant to apply this technology in the classroom because
they lack the necessary skills to do so.
Why Synthesis is Important in Academic Writing
Thus far, this chapter has presented various important features
of academic writing, such as critical thinking and analysis,
metacognitive strategies, and synthesis. Synthesizing is
important in academic writing because it helps elevate writing
to a scholarly professional level. Thinking about the six levels
of Bloom’s taxonomy, reporting findings from the literature is
at the second level from the bottom of the taxonomy pyramid.
Synthesis is definitely a skill all learners must master, but one
that doctoral learners must elevate.

Furthermore, synthesis allows the writer to demonstrate to the
audience that he or she is a well-developed, skilled scholar who
has thoroughly reviewed the literature on a given topic and is
able to present the key pieces of information to the audience in
a comprehensive manner. If readers feel they need to become
more familiar with the details of a particular article, they can
look it up through the information in the references section,
which part of the reason references are provided in scholarly
work.
Taking a Position
Thus far, the content of this chapter has placed great emphasis
on objectivity in academic thinking, reading, processing, and
writing; however, it is still possible to take a position in
academic writing without assertions, emotion words, or trying
to sway the reader. If written correctly and objectively, the
writer’s voice will come through academic writing without the
use of common persuasion techniques popular in nonacademic
writing.
Developing an academic voice is a challenging and subtle skill.
First, the individual must formulate an opinion on the matter of
discussion Then, he or she must look for support of that opinion
in academic literature and provide that support as evidence that
the opinion is valid. Academic voice is the academic author’s
opinion or point presented objectively with the use of scholarly,
cited sources.
Academic Voice Example
classroom. [This is the writer’s opinion or academic voice.]
Researchers have provided evidence that often, teachers do not
know how to incorporate technology, such as video games, in
the classroom or which features of video games are most
effective in the learning process (Karoui, Marfisi-Schottman,
and George, 2017) [The writer’s opinion is supported with
empirical evidence.]. Teachers also report that, in addition to a
lack of understanding of specific features of video games, they
lack technological expertise and school-level support, which

would allow them to effectively incorporate technology in their
classroom lessons (Clary, Kigotho, & Barros-Torning, 2013)
[The writer’s opinion is supported again with empirical
evidence.]
The key to taking a position in academic writing though the use
of academic voice is to continue to avoid bias in one’s writing.
Often, when aspiring scholars first begin working on tasks that
involve academic writing, they fall victim to the common
pitfalls of bias, which are assertions, emotions, and persuasion.
The following sections provide informatio n about avoiding
these common pitfalls.
Demonstrating Position Without Assertions
An assertion in academic writing is a statement that something
is true or a fact. In everyday conversation, speakers make
frequent assertions with no requirement to support their
statements with peer-reviewed sources. In fact, doing so while
carrying on a conversation would be awkward for both the
speaker and the listener; however, in academic writing,
especially during peer-review, reviewers often challenge
assertions and request support for the assertion statement. To
avoid assertions in academic writing, the writer must support all
facts with peer-reviewed, academic source citations.
An assertion ceases being an assertion once it is supported with
citations from academic sources. Table 3.3 provides additional
comparisons of assertions and academically supported
statements. While avoiding assertions requires the author to
trust the reader to draw the conclusions intended by the author,
as long as writer correctly presents the facts and supports them
with valid sources, the reader is likely to receive the intended
meaning.
Table 3.3
Assertions vs. Academically Supported Statements
Assertions
Academically Supported Statements
Millions of children are in Title I schools.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, during the

school year 2009-10, 21,000,000 children were enrolled in Title
I schools across the U.S. (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
Women have been getting paid less than men for decades.
In 1955, the ratio of women’s to men’s compensation was 65%.
This ratio has increased to 80% in 2017, but the pay for men
and women doing comparable work remains unequal
(Hegewisch & Williams-Baron, 2017).
Demonstrating a Position Without Emotion Words
Researchers are passionate about their research topics. While
passion and perseverance can serve well in the academic
setting, and especially in the dissertation journey, they can also
be detriments in the process of academic writing. Passion about
a research topic can make the research more valuable and
meaningful, but passion also clouds judgement. It is apparent in
the content of this chapter that critical thinking, academic
writing, and metacognition require researchers to be unbiased,
logical, and somewhat detached; and being passionate is the
opposite of those qualities.
When a writer wants to communicate an opinion or position to
the audience and is passionate about the topic being
communicated, there is a tendency to use emotion words in
writing. While emotion words have a place in creative writing,
persuasive writing, and argument writing, they have no place in
academic writing. Emotion words make writing seem subjective
rather than objective. While emotion words are excellent for
developing a voice in writing, one of the goals of academic
writing is objectivity; therefore, doctoral researchers should
avoid emotion words. Table 3.4 includes common emotion
words that learners use in academic writing.
Table 3.4
Examples of Emotion Words
Aggressive
Immediately
Skyrocket
Astonishing
Outrageous

Terrible
Astounded
Proven
Tragic
Dreadful
Rarity
Tremendous
Deplorable
Regretfully
Truly
Extremely
Remarkable
Unbelievable
First-ever
Shamefully/It is a shame
Unfortunately/Fortunately
Highly (likely/unlikely)
Shocking
Urge
Conclusion
Critical thinking is an essential tool for the scholar. In order to
be an effective critical thinker, a scholar must be objective and
skeptical, become an informed and critical consumer of
knowledge, and critically evaluate research and facts presented
both in media and in academic publications. Metacognition
plays an important role in critical thinking because
metacognitive processes and regulation allow the improvement
and honing of the thinking process through reflection and
adjustment of one’s own thinking.
This chapter presented information about a common struggle
faced by novice researchers: comparative analysis and synthesis
of research results. Comparative analysis and synthesis are
other important tools in a researcher’s toolkit and in the process
of doctoral study, learners must practice and improve this skill
on the road to independent scholarship. To become proficient at
synthesizing information from academic literature, learners

must practice and understand basic principles and skill of
argumentation acquired in the process of scholarship.
Finally, this chapter presented a discussion on taking a position
in academic writing. Though academic writers strive to remain
objective, it is still possible to take a position in scholarly
writing and to develop an academic voice. The academic writer
develops this academic voice without the use of assertions or
emotion words that make the writing seem biased or less than
scholarly.
Check for Understanding
1. What does it mean for doctoral learners to think critically?
2. What is metacognition, and how is it related to critical
thinking?
3. What are the main differences between academic and
nonacademic publications?
4. What is comparative analysis and synthesis of literature?
5. What are assertions, and how can researchers avoid making
them in scholarly writing?
Answers
1. Thinking critically for doctoral learners means breaking
down academic material, such as published studies, into
components and critically analyzing each component.
2. Metacognition is thinking about one’s own thinking.
Metacognition plays an important role in critical thinking in
that it allows one to trace his or her critical-thinking process
and to adjust any errors in thinking or judgment.
3. Academic publications are peer reviewed and contain
references. Nonacademic publications are not peer reviewed and
do not contain references.
4. Comparative analysis involves examining differences in
research findings across different demographics or samples.
Synthesis means (1) using multiple sources in the form of
academic articles, which are all written about a particular topic
and (2) presenting parallels between the articles by comparing
and contrasting them with one another and then presenting the
final story of what all of these articles say about a given topic.

5. Assertions in academic writing are statements that indicate
something is true or a fact without evidence of support from
scholarly, peer-reviewed, cited sources. To avoid assertions in
scholarly writing all stated facts must be supported with peer-
reviewed, scholarly source citations.
flip text
Glossary
Academic Tone/Voice: Writing at the doctoral level includes a
particular cadence that is formal and professional. Concise and
precise wording and composition are also hallmarks of the
academic tone and voice.
Argument Synthesis: Presents the focus and defends the
problem statement as it emerges from the many sources chosen
for the analysis. An argument synthesis could be debated.
Assertion: In academic writing, a statement of fact or truth.
Bias: The lens with which each individual views the world.
Colloquialism: A word or phrase used in casual or familiar
conversation.
Comparative Research: In the social sciences research, a
research methodology that includes an attempt to examine
differences across different demographic variables of people.
Critical Thinking: An engaged examination of component
characteristics of a problem or question, taking acquired
knowledge and new knowledge in to account in order to develop
an informed, coherent, and clear position.
Emotion Words: Words that convey a sense of emotion or
evaluation and convey to the reader the impression of
subjectivity rather than objectivity.
Explanatory Synthesis: Provides information to assist the reader
in understanding the topic and its connections to other major
ideas in the research literature.
Metacognition: Thinking about one's own thinking.
Metacognitive Knowledge: Allows individuals to improve
thinking, planning, and processes.
Metacognitive Regulation: Allows an individual to build upon

prior knowledge and to modify strategies based on what did and
did not work in the past.
Nonacademic Writing: Writing that is personal, contains
impressions or persuasive language, and does not require the
citing of references or sources.
Peer Reviewed: Material that is written by experts in a field
about academic topics and published only with the approval of
their peers; also known as refereed or scholarly.
Reporting: In academic writing, restating the findings of
scholarly, peer-reviewed sources in one's own words or through
direct quotations.
Scaffolding: The systematic building on experiences and current
knowledge.
Synthesis: The combining of previously known or published
information to create new ideas and knowledge, leading to the
expansion of an academic field of study.
References
Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical thinking. Bloomington, IN: Phi
Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D.
(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification
of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York,
NY: Longmans, Green.
Comparative analysis. (n.d.). Business Dictionary. (2017).
Retrieved from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/comparative-
analysis.html
Clary, D., Kigotho, M., & Barros-Torning, M. (2013).
Harnessing mobile technologies to enrich adolescents'
multimodal literacy practices in middle years
classrooms. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 21(3), 49-60.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation
of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA:
D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring:
A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American

Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and
development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe
(Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21-
29). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Govender, R. (2015). 5 reasons why peer review matters.
Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-
update/story/career-tips-and-advice/5-reasons-why-peer-review-
matters
Grand Canyon University. (n.d.). The College of Doctoral
Studies. Retrieved from https://www.gcu.edu/college-of-
doctoral-studies.php.
Hegewisch, A. & Williams-Baron, E. (2017). The gender wage
gap: 2016; Earnings differences by gender, race, and ethnicity.
Retrieved from https://iwpr.org/publications/gender-wage-gap-
2016-earnings-differences-gender-race-ethnicity/
Karoui, A., Marfisi-Schottman, I., & George, S. (2017). A
nested design approach for mobile learning games. Paper
presented at the meeting of 16th World Conference on Mobile
and Contextual Learning, Larnaca, Cyprus.
Lamb, J. & Daniels, R. (1993). Gifted girls in a rural
community: Math attitudes and career options. Exceptional
Children, 59(6), 513-517.
Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The politics of
publication. Nature, 422, 259-261.
Lloyd Seale Library, John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
(2017). Evaluating information sources: What is a peer-
reviewed article? Retrieved from
http://guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/c.php?g=288333&p=1922599
McElwee, S. (2009, September). Metacognition for the
classroom and beyond. Presentation to Mercy Mounthawk
School, Tralee, Ireland.
Nisbett, R.E. & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can
know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological
Review, 84(23), 1 -259.
Peer. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster online dictionary (11th ed.).

Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/peer
Perras, C. (2014). Metacognitive strategies or “thinking about
my thinking.” Retrieved from
https://www.ldatschool.ca/metacognitive-strategies-or-thinking-
about-my-thinking/
Quitadamo, I. J. & Kurtz, M. J. (2007). Learning to improve:
Using writing to increase critical thinking performance in
general education biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(2),
140-154. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-11-0203
Rennie, D. (1999). Misconduct and peer review. In F. Godlee
and T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (pp.90-
99). London, UK: BMJ Books.
Reutzel, R.D., Jones, C. D., Fawson, P. D., & Smith, J.A.
(2008). Scaffolded silent reading: A complement to guided
repeated oral reading that works! The Reading Teacher, 62(3),
194-207. doi:10.1598/RT.62.3.2
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John
Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record,
104(4), 842-866.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Programs: Improving
basic programs operated by local educational agencies (Title I,
Part A). Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
Vandenbroucke, J. P. (1998). Medical journals and the shaping
of medical knowledge. Lancet, 352, 2001-6.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical
thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 24-28.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in
problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child
Psychiatry, 17(2), 89−100.
Yzerbyt, V. Y., Lories, G., & Dardenne, B. (Eds.).
(2009). Metacognition: cognitive and social dimensions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
· HOME
· CHAPTERS
· GLOSSARY
· AUTHOR BIOS
· HELP
Chapter 4
Sections
Chapter 4. Essential Skills for a Doctoral DissertationBy Eric J.
Nordin and Cristie McClendon
Essential Questions:
· What are the characteristics of a GCU dissertation?
· What traits and skills do doctoral learners need to possess in
order to complete the dissertation?
· How does one select an appropriate dissertation topic?
· What are some common mistakes doctoral learners make
during the research process?
Introduction
·
Developing the essential skills involved in the research process
is a crucial step for doctoral learners to master since pursuing a
doctoral degree is fundamentally a research-oriented endeavor.
Beginning with the various research-based papers during course
work and ending with a dissertation, doctoral learners must
understand that research, and the aspects of the research
process, are paramount in the doctoral learning experience.
Through acquiring an understanding of the research process and
how to apply research findings in an effective manner, doctoral
learners will be able to apply the skills gained duri ng their
doctoral journey, as well as those from further academic
research endeavors, their professional lives, and everyday
decision-making. Dissertation research follows a specific

process and structure. Learners must have the skills and
discipline to follow that structure. Many doctoral learners,
however, experience significant challenges in completing their
programs, so they should be aware of both the traits of
successful students and the requirements specific to Grand
Canyon University (GCU) for completing doctoral programs.
This chapter covers GCU requirements for doctoral-level
research and also presents the academic skills and personal
characteristics learners need to possess to persist in the degree
programs to completion.
GCU Requirements for Doctoral Level Research
·
The GCU dissertation must emerge from an inductive process
whereby the doctoral learner identifies a gap in prior knowledge
or problem space that the dissertation study will address.
Students should read vast amounts of information on the topic,
including both literary articles and empirical research studies.
Faculty members commonly ask doctoral learners at GCU
residencies “What does the research say about that?”, or, “Who
said so?”. Faculty members expect that learners will have done
their due diligence by becoming exceptionally knowledgeable
on the dissertation topic. As such, learners should be prepared
to address these questions.
The GCU dissertation must clearly communicate a research
problem, build a cogent argument for the intended investigation,
and accurately report and discuss the study results. The
dissertation committee must judge whether a dissertation
exemplifies a work of research competence at the doctoral level
and whether the doctoral learner has created a product that adds
to the knowledge base. The mark of a true genius is said to be
that experts in the genius researcher’s field do not know how
the genius arrived at his or her insight. The genius’s work is
truly original. However, dissertations must be entirely
understandable to a committee of experts. If they do not
understand and approve the doctoral learner’s research, the
learner will fail. Simply stated, it is best to become a genius

after the degree is completed; producing a clear, concise and
“doable” dissertationis a good idea. GCU has specific
procedures, tools, and strategies that help doctoral learners
accomplish this goal. These will be discussed in more detail in
upcoming chapters.
·
·
·
Dissertations at GCU incorporate solid methodological rigor,
data collection, and data analysis techniques. The research
methods used in GCU dissertations are guided by research
questions and must yield to the methods available to the
doctoral learner. If one does not have and cannot find an
appropriate method, the research question cannot be addressed.
Doctoral learners must be the master of the method they use,
and they must use the most appropriate method available. Thus,
GCU doctoral learners may have to learn, understand, and
master the knowledge related to a new and demanding method if
they are going to ask a particular question. All of this must be
accomplished within the learner’s scope of influence and within
the confines of the GCU program of study and time frame.
A GCU dissertation must be manageable and within the
knowledge base and skill set of the researcher. The resources
necessary to complete the project must be available. These
include appropriate subjects, apparatus, equipment and/or tests.
Often, novice researchers enter the dissertation course sequence
prepared to change the world only to find faculty members do
not approve the proposed study. Doctoral learners must
remember that their faculty members have completed
dissertations themselves and know well the necessary
requirements and resources to successfully finish the journey.
Take their advice!
The GCU dissertation adheres to the rules of scholarly
writing. Scholarly writing is central to communicating the
findings the doctoral learner discovers during the dissertation
process. This writing differs in form and function compared to

writing for a general audience, as there is a very specific
purpose for work as well as an explicit audience reading and
reviewing the work. Doctoral learners often mention they feel
like their writing is repetitive. The dissertation follows a
predictable formula and format and is intended to be repetitive.
Carefully following the GCU templates and rubrics will
facilitate this process. Learning this lesson early will help the
learner avoid losing time with unnecessary revisions and
feedback. In most cases, the audience for the research and
dissertations produced by a doctoral learner is established
scholars in the learner’s field of study who want the learner to
create research that is relevant and adds to the corpus of
knowledge. Some of the most important established scholars
who read the dissertation are the committee members, whose
names go on the cover sheet of the dissertation manuscript.
Along with their names goes their professional reputations;
therefore, they expect doctoral learners will produce work that
will honor these reputations.
Scholarly, scientific writing entails communicating in a clear
and concise manner, establishing coherence in writing, using
active rather than passive voice, and using strong, descriptive
verbs to clarify the message and information conveyed in the
written work (American Psychological Association, 2010).
Doctoral learners should always do their best work and submit
documents that are grammatically correct and adhere to
American Psychological Association (APA) format. Dissertation
writing is an iterative process in which the doctoral learner
should expect to complete multiple drafts of the work, to edit
and revise manifold times, and to use critical thinking in the
design, development, and completion of the written works.
Submission of high-quality work will reduce the number of
times learners are asked to revise their work. An important
component of this iterative process is that the doctoral learner
accepts feedback in a professional manner and with an open
mind. Dissertation writing is an iterative process.Flexibility is a
great attribute to possess during the dissertation journey!

Committee members expect learners to adhere to the GCU
doctoral disposition of valuing and integrating feedback and
considering other viewpoints.
·
Finally, the GCU research endeavor must conform to the ethical
principles and guidelines for research represented in
the Belmont Report. Doctoral learners are required to ensure
their research meets these standards. They must take and pass
ethics training from the Collaborative Institutional Training
Initiative (CITI) and have their dissertation proposal approved
by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). These actions help to
ensure that a GCU dissertation advances knowledge, is ethically
sound, and is doable.
·
What Skills Do Doctoral Learners Need for the Dissertation
Journey?
Wisker (2015) noted that scholarly, research writing is a genre
in and of itself. It is a situated social practice and involves an
intricate struggle as the doctoral learner navigates amid diverse
identities and conversations. Writing the dissertation is a
process of discovery and transformation for doctoral learners.
Wisker found thatseveral traits were associated with doctoral
learners’ ability to develop a strong dissertation study. These
characteristics included:
· New ways of seeing, understanding, and of being in the world;
· Understanding exactly what their contribution to
knowledge/understanding is;
· Deeply understanding the research process;
· Seeing their [dissertation] as an integrated whole;
· Seeing themselves as a researcher/academic contributing to
their professional
· field;
· Owning their research;
· Understanding who they are as a researcher; and
· Developing [speaking and writing] confidence with academic
language and that of their discipline (p. 68).

Through writing, the doctoral learner experiences both barriers
and breakthroughs in this iterative process. Persistence,
resilience and flexibility are attributes possessed by learners
who completed their degrees. Nancy Wigdon, GCU’s first
doctoral graduate in psychology, put it best when she said, “Do
I want my dissertation done my way, or do I want my
dissertation done?” This quote captures the need for doctoral
learners to be willing to accept feedback and incorporate it into
their writing.
Wisker (2015) found writing takes practice and that doctoral
learners go through transformations in their writing
development. In the initial stages of the dissertation writing
process, learners may engage in mimicry, where they read
others’ works and reproduce their own writing in a similar
format. Initially, this is without understanding, but with more
practice and writing experience, that understanding evolves.
One good strategy doctoral learners should adopt when they
identify their topic of study is to find other dissertations on the
topic and read those carefully. This will give the learner ideas
as to how to structure his or her own study and also how to
structure the literature review. Downloading, printing, and
reading the GCU templates will also help the learner identify
how key components of the proposal and dissertation build on
one another. Knowing and understanding these
interrelationships will save the learner vast amounts of time.
Another strategy that leads to transformation is for the doctoral
learner to read deeply and widely on the topic (Wisker, 2015).
This means reading many different articles and studies but also
reading to understand deeply rather than superficially skimming
the content. In later stages of the dissertation journey, after vast
reading and mimicking the writing of others, the doctoral
learner is able to join a mental conversation with other authors
on the topic, and his or her own writing becomes bolder and
more confident. In sum, the dissertation must be developed,
revisited, and completed. During this process, the learner moves
from a novice writer and researcher to a scientific, scholarly

academician (Wisker, 2015).
Critical thinking is the one overarching skill that encompasses
most of the talents that doctoral learners require. Although there
is not a generally agreed upon definition of critical thinking,
some of the general themes involved in critical thinking include
evaluating information, contrasting information, synthesizing
information, and examining diverse opinions, which all help to
develop a holistic understanding of the topic or subject one is
studying (Jenkins, 2012). Critical thinking often begins with
developing the questions related to the subject the doctoral
learner desires to study. These questions illuminate gaps or
problem spaces in the existing body of research literature. By
developing questions related to these gaps or problem spaces,
the doctoral learner can begin to identify an area of research to
study in an in-depth manner (Goodwin, 2014).
Gathering information is another central aspect of critical
thinking as being able to access, contrast, and synthesize
information are necessary for the doctoral learner to understand
the area of research holistically. Once the information is
gathered, the doctoral learner must verify the information to
produce high-quality research. The verification process can
entail examining the information, ascertaining who produced the
information, determining or inferring motives behind the
production of the information, and evaluating the extent to
which the information relates to the area of study (Jani &
Mellinger, 2015). In addition, the doctoral learner should focus
on the reliability, validity, and trustworthiness of the
information. Ensuring the information to be used in the research
is valid, reliable, and trustworthy increases the likelihood that
the research results can contribute meaningfully to the body of
knowledge in the field of study.
Critical thinking directly relates to the search strategy that
doctoral learners use to identify information since finding the
necessary information starts with a strong search strategy. He or
she should focus on peer-reviewed works from within the past 5
years. Peer-reviewed works undergo rigorous scrutiny before

being published. Certain websites, dictionaries, old sources,
books, and dissertations should be used sparingly. Information
on websites is not always checked or cited and can be
inaccurate; furthermore, it is often not peer-reviewed.
Government websites and others with strong reputations are
exceptions to the rule. In addition, many things change over
time, and using old sources may cause the learner to report
inaccurate information. When books and dissertations are cited,
the reader (i.e., chair, committee members, reviewers) assumes,
rightfully or not, that the learner has read the entire work.
Another strategy doctoral learners often use during their
research process, is to compare and contrast the informationthey
find. By contrasting information, doctoral learners can begin the
process of discerning, evaluating, and incorporating information
in their research endeavors. This tool also allows the doctoral
learner to improve his or her information evaluation abilities,
which will be useful in the dissertation as the quality of the
sources used in the dissertation has a significant effect on the
quality of the dissertation (Carter, 2008). Comparing and
contrasting information during the research process can hel p the
doctoral learner gain a more holistic perspective about the topic
or subject through the review of multiple sources, often
promoting diverse and conflicting information and thoughts or
illuminating unanswered questions. Information evaluation will
be useful in the dissertation.The exposure of the doctoral
learner to diverse and conflicting sources of information can
help in the development of the important research skills of
discernment, evaluation, and integration, which are central
components to producing quality research at the doctoral level.
The process of comparative analysis requires individuals to
engage meaningfully with material, beyond the “eyeball test,”
moving beyond cursory scanning of information as they begin to
draw on resources and ideas from other perspectives to think
differently about the information being processed. This is a key
process used to identify gaps in prior research and a key
strategy used to identify a topic worthy of a dissertation study.

While the eyeball test is a good strategy to use as one skims
abstracts of articles and studies to read in further detail, reading
empirical studies in detail is critical, as the learner must
identify the different methods, designs, samples, data collection
instruments, data analysis, and results obtained. Knowing what
and who has been studied is as important as what and who has
not been studied.
Imagine a doctoral learner wants to study whether the word
choice potential students use in their college admissions essays
predict subsequent success in their academic program. The
doctoral learner reads studies on the topic and identifies that
most of the studies are quantitative in nature but also notices
that none of the studies have been conducted at the doctoral
level. A further analysis of the research on the topic reveals that
there are gender differences in the words males and females use
in their essays. This learner has now identified two gaps that a
potential study may fill, so he or she makes the decision to
further study gender differences in writing and how the study of
word choice can be a potential source of determining future
success in a program. Part of this process, however, requires
that the learner compare and contrast the findings of other
studies, as he or she finds that some show word choice predicts
academic success, whereas other studies find it does not. This
requires more reading on the topic, beyond skimming abstracts.
Synthesis is an additional process of research that doctoral
students will use while writing the dissertation, as this style of
research is central to producing new ideas based on existing
information. Synthesis is central.The synthesis of previously
published academic research is one of the overarching aspects
of the dissertation and a critical skill for doctoral learners to
understand (Lemay & Sá, 2014). Synthesis is central in the
doctoral learner’s ability to take disparate and conflicting
information, examine the information in an unbiased and in-
depth manner, and produce new ideas or thoughts, which are
requisite in the dissertation process.
In this course, learners are introduced to the concept of

synthesis, but as they move into the dissertation phases of the
program, the concept takes on a new meaning as the literature
review is now on the horizon. Many doctoral learners fall into
the trap of providing summaries of studies on the topic. Having
learned to cull the necessary components out of the study, they
quickly identify the problem, purpose, method, design, sample,
data-collection instruments, and results. This information is
then presented in a “book report” format, in summaries, rather
than the learner taking all of the information and synthesizing it
into a cogent whole, representing new structure.
Consider an example of a learner who wants to study teacher
perceptions of single-gender education at the middle school
level. The learner reads and identifies several studies on the
topic. He or she notices that most of the studies are
quantitative, focus on student achievement, and do not consider
that how teachers perceive the instructional format influences
student learning. Instead of presenting these studies in
chronological format, the learner can synthesize the information
and present themes related to the topic. These themes might
focus on the nonacademic benefits of single-gender education,
qualitative studies on single-gender education, the unique
qualities of single-gender education at the middle school level,
and teacher perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of this
instructional format. Thus, the learner has taken the information
gleaned from the literature search and has compiled it in a new
format, based on his or her unique understanding of the topic.
How Does One Select an Appropriate Dissertation Topic?
·
Possibly the most important decision the doctoral learner makes
that impacts the dissertation study is selection of the topic. The
dissertation requires countless hours of research, data
collection, and writing, so the topic should be one of interest to
the learner. A topic of interest, however, does not mean that a

topic is appropriate for a dissertation study. For example, a
hypothetical learner enrolled in an Ed.D. program has a child
diagnosed with celiac disease. The learner wants to conduct a
clinical study with children controlling for dietary gluten and
examining academic performance. While this is indeed an
interesting idea and valid area of research, the notion of
conducting a complex clinical study requiring physician and
dietician support is not likely viable within the scope of the
learner’s expertise, resources, and program time constraints.
This is not an appropriate dissertation topic to pursue for an
Ed.D program. On the other hand, a dissertation takes
considerable time and effort, and the topic must sustain the
doctoral learner through the rigors of research. Because the
dissertation is a complex and extended experience, the learner
must be prepared to engage with the topic for literally years, so
personal/professional interest, feasibility, and alignment to the
degree program are all very important. What constitutes a
“good/viable” dissertation topic is a complex matter.
Identifying a Dissertation Topic
GCU doctoral learners should consider three different
perspectives as they determine their research topic. Fir st, they
should assess long-term career goals and think about how the
dissertation might help leverage a new job or help achieve these
goals. Start by identifying a career or job to have in 5, 10, and
15 years and how the dissertation study might help obtain that
job. Second, the doctoral learner should consider the emphasis
area of their program of study. The dissertation topic needs to
align to that emphasis. Finally, the learner should consider the
leadership topics and models that are relevant to these career
goals and the emphasis area. In other words, identify the skills,
knowledge, and models that would help learners realize their
career goal(s). After considering these three areas, the process
of defining potential research topics will allow the study to
begin taking shape, which will also inform the problem and
purpose of the dissertation study.
Ideas to Consider When Selecting a Dissertation Topic

The topic:
· should be manageable,
· should be doable (residing within the learner’s scope of
influence),
· aligns with the learner's training and professional background,
· can be completed within the GCU program timeline,
· is not one in which the learner is overly emotionally invested,
· is not a "hot topic" or controversial issue,
· is not dangerous or one that will harm others,
· is ethical and legal,
· aligns with the learner's specialization area at GCU, and
· adds to the body of research and scholarly literature on the
topic.
Figure 4.1
Sources of Topic Ideas
Cone and Foster (2006) provided several suggestions students
use to identify a dissertation topic. One popular plan is to read
information about faculty members and their research interests.
This is a great strategy, which may not only provide an expert
to consult about the study but may also provide a mentor willing
to become the content member of the dissertation committee.
Another way to identify research prospects is to read empirical
studies on a topic of interest and identify what
recommendations authors have for future research. Dissertati on
studies can build on the work of prior research in a new and
meaningful way. At GCU, learners can also post topics in the
Doctoral Community (DC) and receive feedback from peers,
faculty members, and College of Doctoral Studies (CDS) staff
members.
Strategies to Use to Identify a Topic
· Read information about faculty members and their research
interests.
· Read literary articles and research studies on the topic.
· Read what other researchers have suggested for further study.
· Post topics in DC for faculty and peer feedback.

Doctoral learners should definitely find topics that are of
interest; however, they should avoid topics in which they are
emotionally invested. For example, one should avoid studies on
emotional or physical abuse if he or she has been the victim of
these circumstances. These emotional components often
interfere with research and can create researcher bias.
Regardless, the topic must possess several important
characteristics. Nonnegotiable attributes for GCU dissertations
are that the topic must be doable, relevant to the learner’s
specialization area, and must contribute new and original
knowledge to the field of study. Finally, the study must be of
value to practitioners in the field.
Topic or Subject Misalignment
A common mistake many novice researchers commit is choosing
a topic they do not have the ability to research. Dissertation
today; save the world tomorrow!This mistake often involves
choosing a research topic that is too large to study within the
time parameters of the dissertation.
Examples of Broad Topics That Can Be Narrowed Down for a
Dissertation Study
· A belief that leadership can help improve quality of education
in schools
· A desire to understand how a leader can ensure success in his
or her organization
· Experience that counselors in a facility lead to people
overcoming addiction
· Concern that minority students have high dropout rates in high
school
· Retention of sales associates
· A belief that integration of technology into instruction
improves the engagement of students
· Concern about the attrition rates of students in online doctoral
programs
Doctoral learners should remember that their research should be
focused and in-depth, rather than broad and shallow, as the
purpose of research during the doctoral study is not to solve

large problems, but to garner an in-depth understanding of a
finite area in their field (Byers et al., 2014).
Additional issues can include developing a research study in
which access to a population or the appropriate data set is
difficult or impossible. Doctoral learners should remember they
most likely will need to gain access to a population or data set
to complete their studies, and that many of these areas are not
easily accessible.
Examples of topics that are not doable:
· Repealing or dismantling the Common Core Standards or high-
stakes testing.
· A learner wants to conduct a purely experimental study by
requiring newly hired employees to attend mandatory
technology training. The researcher wants to determine whether
participation in this training impacts usage of this technology
on the job, and the return on investment to the company.
However, getting permission from a company to administer a
training that is not part of the onboarding process is most likely
not going to happen.
· Studying the lived experiences of terrorists in Syria.
· Studying the impact of a principal’s toxic leadership on
teacher morale and student achievement.
Nuances in the Process
Developing the correct research questions or hypotheses related
to the topic or subject a doctoral learner is studying is another
area where mistakes are frequent. Doctoral learners should
focus on developing questions and hypotheses that fit within the
parameters of their study, which, as mentioned above, should
consider issues of access to populations or data sets as well as
focus and depth. In addition, doctoral learners unfamiliar with
the research process should ensure they research their topic or
subject in a thorough manner (Vekkaila, Pyhältö, & Lonka,
2013). This entails moving beyond what the doctoral learner
currently understands about the topic or subject to a more
holistic understanding of the area of research. During the
research process, doctoral learners should use primary, peer-

reviewed, scholarly resources rather than secondary or tertiary
resources to gain an in-depth understanding of their topic or
subject at a scholarly level. By thoroughly reviewing the
existing literature on their topic or subject, doctoral learners
can also increase their ability to produce a thorough literature
review—the literature review is often the lengthiest portion of
the dissertation. Choosing the correct research method and
design is another area in which doctoral learners can make
significant mistakes in the research process (Carter, 2008). Use
primary, peer-reviewed, scholarly resources.Although additional
information will be presented later in the program regarding the
various research methods and designs the doctoral learner can
use in research studies at Grand Canyon University (GCU),
some initial concerns to think about include considering the best
methods and designs to study a chosen topic or subject as well
as a doctoral learner’s research paradigm and worldview.
The scholarly research process can seem daunting, as it is
replete with areas for doctoral learners to commit mistakes.
Common areas in which doctoral learners can commit mistakes
include selecting an inappropriate size for the study; developing
questions or hypotheses unrelated to the topic or subject; not
reviewing the existing literature on the topic or subject in a
thorough manner; not engaging fully in the research process;
and misaligning the research method, the research design, and
the purpose of the study. By understanding the complexities and
nuances of the scholarly research process, doctoral learners can
lessen the chances they will commit errors in the process, or at
least, understand where and how mistakes often occur in order
to make corrections in an effective manner. Developing an
aligned 10 Strategic Points document (discussed in the 2019
article by Bainbridge, Maul, and McClendon [2019]) and
following the GCU templates will help mitigate these issues.
Conclusion
In summary, doctoral learners are expected to read and become
an authority on the dissertation topic and add to the existing
body of research with a new and original study. This effort

· HOME· CHAPTERS · GLOSSARY· AUTHOR BIOS· HELP Chapter

· HOME· CHAPTERS · GLOSSARY· AUTHOR BIOS· HELP Chapter

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to · HOME· CHAPTERS · GLOSSARY· AUTHOR BIOS· HELP Chapter

Similar to · HOME· CHAPTERS · GLOSSARY· AUTHOR BIOS· HELP Chapter (19)

More from LesleyWhitesidefv

More from LesleyWhitesidefv (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

· HOME· CHAPTERS · GLOSSARY· AUTHOR BIOS· HELP Chapter