Unformatted Attachment Preview
Walden University
Dissertation
Guidebook
For internal use only.
Walden University
Academic Offices
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55401
1-800-WALDENU (1-800-925-3368)
Walden University is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission, www.hlcommission.org.
Walden University practices a policy of nondiscrimination in admission to, access to, and
employment in its programs and activities. Walden does not discriminate on the basis of race,
color, sex, age, religion or creed, marital status, disability, national or ethnic origin,
socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or other legally protected status.
Walden is committed to providing barrier-free access to its educational services and makes
appropriate and reasonable accommodations when necessary. Students requesting
accommodations per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must contact the Office of
Disability Services at disability@mail.waldenu.edu.
Walden University publications, including the catalog and student handbook, represent current
curricula, educational plans, offerings, requirements, tuition, and fees. These may be modified or
discontinued from time to time in the university’s sole discretion to carry out the university’s
purposes and objectives. Neither the provisions of this document nor the acceptance of students
through registration and enrollment in the university constitutes a contract or an offer of a
contract.
Walden University is a registered trademark of Walden University, LLC. © 2018 Walden
University, LLC.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page ii
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
The Walden University Dissertation Statement .......................................................................... 1
How This Guidebook Is Organized ............................................................................................. 3
Part 1. The Dissertation Process ..................................................................................................... 4
Process Overview ........................................................................................................................ 4
Beginning the Process ................................................................................................................. 7
Developing the Premise .............................................................................................................. 7
Supervisory Committee ............................................................................................................... 8
Writing the Prospectus ................................................................................................................ 8
Registering for Credits ................................................................................................................ 9
Review Tools............................................................................................................................. 10
Developing the Proposal ........................................................................................................... 13
Gaining Committee Approval of the Proposal .......................................................................... 13
Gaining URR Approval of the Proposal ................................................................................... 14
Proposal Oral Presentation ........................................................................................................ 14
G.etting Approval for Research................................................................................................. 15
Completing the Dissertation ...................................................................................................... 16
Gaining URR Approval of the Dissertation .............................................................................. 21
Form and Style Review ............................................................................................................. 22
Oral Defense .............................................................................................................................. 23
Final Approval and Submission ................................................................................................ 24
Academic Integrity and Plagiarism ........................................................................................... 26
Part 2. Evaluation in MyDR .......................................................................................................... 27
Proposal ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Final Study ................................................................................................................................ 28
Final Overall Quality ................................................................................................................. 29
Part 3. Style: APA and Walden University ................................................................................... 33
Overall Structure ....................................................................................................................... 33
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 34
Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 35
Definitions of Terms and Glossaries ......................................................................................... 36
Copyrights and Permission to Use ............................................................................................ 37
Crediting Sources ...................................................................................................................... 38
Footnotes ................................................................................................................................... 43
Point of View ............................................................................................................................ 43
Verb Tense ................................................................................................................................ 43
Inclusive Language ................................................................................................................... 44
Type ........................................................................................................................................... 45
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page iii
Line Spacing .............................................................................................................................. 45
Margins and Page Numbers ...................................................................................................... 45
Headings .................................................................................................................................... 46
Lists: Seriation........................................................................................................................... 47
Tables and Figures .................................................................................................................... 49
Numbers and Percentages ......................................................................................................... 51
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 51
Spelling, Grammar, and Punctuation ........................................................................................ 51
Capitalization ............................................................................................................................ 53
Sample Pages ............................................................................................................................. 55
Part 4. Frequently Asked Questions.............................................................................................. 60
Questions About the Dissertation Process ................................................................................ 60
Questions About Form and Style .............................................................................................. 61
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page iv
Introduction
The final phase of study for Walden University doctoral students is completion of a dissertation,
which begins with preparation of a dissertation premise and ends with approval of the final
dissertation. Walden does not favor any particular research approach or methodology but does
require that a dissertation reflect a high level of scholarly effort and be an original contribution to
the knowledge that supports professional practice. Students should demonstrate knowledge of
research design and execution as well as the ability to interpret research findings, both verbally
and in writing. The final product should have the level of detail and sophistication expected of a
doctoral-level scholar-practitioner in the discipline.
The Walden University Dissertation Statement
This statement is designed to provide a broad vision of the Walden University dissertation and an
understanding of the university’s dissertation requirements:
The Walden University dissertation embraces and reflects the core values and mission of the
university. Walden strives to produce graduates who combine academic credentials with
professional skills and whose actions are motivated by informed intellect and educated
attitudes. As accomplished practitioners, Walden students bring a wealth of expertise to their
studies. Walden’s curricula then provide the foundation upon which students build their
competence and mold their interests, culminating in the dissertation learning experience.
Through this process, Walden graduates are provided the learning necessary to set forth new
ideas through enlightened insights and to effect change in individuals, organizations, and
society.
Because Walden students and their courses of study vary, the nature and purposes of Walden
dissertations also vary. The university’s approach to scholarship is flexible. The dissertation
can be built upon a foundation of basic or applied research, multidisciplinary perspectives on
scholarship, improved teaching, or an appropriate and acceptable combination of different
forms of rigorous scholarship. Each of these meets the Walden dissertation requirements
insofar as it relates to the nature and purpose of the inquiry and demonstrates a literate
grounding in the relevant fields in which it is written, while maintaining the fundamental
elements of quality and integrity required of stewards of the discipline.
The Walden dissertation demonstrates a commitment to improving the caliber of professional
practice. It is an inquiry that addresses unanswered questions or issues lacking thorough
study and envisions what could happen as a result of the research outcomes. It contributes to
professional practice by offering new knowledge or new understanding of existing
knowledge arrived at through rigorous application of appropriate research methodology and
provides a basis for further research. Therefore, the results of a research study conducted for
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 1
a Walden dissertation are worthy of publication as a significant contribution to professional
practice.
The Walden dissertation demonstrates a commitment to addressing the phenomena of social
change and, within that context, exhibits sensitivity to societal conditions and a consideration
of social issues.
The Walden dissertation confirms a student’s understanding of and commitment to academic
honesty and scholarly integrity.
Every dissertation is shaped by the university’s core values of integrity and quality as well as
its mission: to provide a diverse community of career professionals with the opportunity to
transform themselves as scholar-practitioners so that they can effect positive social change.
The dissertation is the unifying culmination of a doctoral student’s academic experience at
Walden. The most important outcome of all teaching and learning at Walden is to produce
graduates with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
understand and continuously develop and change themselves, the organizations in which
they work, and society at large;
create new knowledge dedicated to the improvement of social conditions and to impact
society positively by putting that knowledge into practice by both modeling their learning
through action and by being civically engaged;
continue learning across their lifetimes as practitioners, researchers, and scholars and
continue to impact social change;
achieve professional excellence as active and influential professionals by applying their
learning to specific problems and challenges in their work settings and professional
practice;
be information literate, including knowing the literature of their professional fields and
reading it critically;
understand the design and methods of inquiry in their professional fields;
practice in their professional fields legally and ethically;
communicate effectively, particularly in communicating their learning and research to
others;
appreciate, respect, and advocate for diversity and multiculturalism within their
professional fields; and
function flexibly and effectively in a variety of educational environments, including online
and distributed environments.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 2
How This Guidebook Is Organized
The Dissertation Guidebook complements other important resources during this phase of the
students’ graduate career, including their dissertation supervisory committee, their academic
program leaders, the academic advisors and other university staff members, the Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA style manual), and the Walden Writing
Center.
The Dissertation Process. Part 1 of this guidebook describes the steps of the dissertation
process, including the use of evaluative rubrics. Part 1 also explains the policies and procedures
related to ethical standards and use of human subjects in research.
The Committee Evaluation Process. The duties of the chair, second member, and university
research reviewer at each stage of the document review process are described in Part 2 of this
guidebook.
Style: APA and Walden University. Form and style guidelines are provided in Part 3, as an
introduction and a supplement to the APA style manual. The APA style manual is students’ main
source of form and style information when writing their dissertation. References to APA style in
this edition of the Dissertation Guidebook reflect the sixth edition of the APA style manual.
When the university has style preferences for dissertations that supersede APA guidelines, those
preferences are indicated in green boxes in this guidebook.
Frequently Asked Questions. Part 4 of this guidebook includes a series of frequently asked
questions regarding the dissertation process as well as form and style issues.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 3
Part 1. The Dissertation Process
The processes for dissertations are continually evaluated and updated to make the experience
easy for both faculty members and students. The steps are detailed in this guidebook. A shorter
description of the dissertation process and relevant forms can be found on the Office of Student
Research Administration (OSRA) section of the Walden University website.
Process Overview
If students wish to graduate in a specific term, they must plan their program carefully. Once
students enter the final stages of the capstone process, they should begin planning for program
completion at least 13 months in advance of their anticipated graduation date. The table below
provides a quick summary of the steps involved in completing the dissertation. The following
sections describe these steps in more detail.
Note: Time to completion will vary based on individual factors applicable to the student.
Step
Description
Premise
The dissertation premise is a short document that identifies a preliminary topic for the
dissertation and supports formation of the dissertation supervisory committee. The students’
primary goal for the premise is to narrow their dissertation topic to provide a general sense of
the direction of their research.
Committee
Assignment
At this time, students are assigned their dissertation supervisory committee, following the
steps outlined for their program of study. The committee will consist of a committee chair
and a second committee member who provide guidance related to the content and research
methods appropriate to the study. After approval of the prospectus, students are assigned
a third member serving in the role of the university research reviewer, URR (if not assigned
at committee formation).
Prospectus
The dissertation prospectus builds on the premise by helping students organize, delineate,
and make decisions regarding their dissertation and appropriate research style. The
prospectus serves as an agreed-upon plan for developing the proposal and finalizes the
structure of the dissertation supervisory committee. The supervisory committee uses the
Dissertation Prospectus Rubric to give feedback on the prospectus. If the committee
approves, the prospectus will then move to the program director for review.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 4
Step
Description
Proposal
Development
The first three chapters of a dissertation are known as the dissertation proposal. The proposal
establishes the rationale for conducting the study, including a review and analysis of the
relevant literature, and describes the design and methodology that will be used for the study.
Students work with their supervisory committee to develop the proposal, consulting the
specific university-approved dissertation checklist for specific guidance on the content and
organization of the dissertation and the Dissertation Minimum Standards Rubric indicators
that will be used to evaluate the dissertation. When ready, students complete a self-evaluation
using the dissertation checklist and a Turnitin report and submit these documents with their
proposal for committee review, via Taskstream, under Proposal Committee Rubric
Analysis. (Note: The dissertation chair may complete a separate Turnitin report, which is
submitted to the URR for review along with the dissertation checklist and proposal).
Students’ committee members, including the URR, evaluate the proposal against the
Dissertation Minimum Standards Rubric, referring to the annotated checklist that students
provide for detailed guidance, when needed. The committee members also review the
Turnitin report.
Proposal
University
Research
Review
When the supervisory committee is satisfied that the proposal meets all the requirements
specified in the minimum standards rubric, the chair reconciles the Proposal Committee
Rubric Analysis as approved and uploads the clean proposal, checklist, and Turnitin report
to the reconciliation. The URR reviews the proposal, again using the minimum standards
rubric, including items relevant to content, methodology, form and style, and ethical
procedures. The URR either approves the proposal, which enables the student to set up an
oral conference, or returns the proposal with a set of suggested revisions. The URR enters his
or her review under Proposal URR Rubric Analysis. Students work with their committee to
make any requested revisions.
Proposal Oral
Presentation
Following URR approval, students orally present the proposal to their committee via
teleconference scheduled with OSRA. Requests must be made at least 1 week in advance of
the meeting. This presentation is used to confirm students’ plans for their research, clarify
any remaining questions that committee members may have regarding the study, and help
ensure that students initiate their research from a sound foundation. After the proposal has
been successfully defended, the chair enters the approval under Proposal Oral Presentation
and uploads the clean approved proposal. Note: Walden provides a conference call service
for the oral defense that is toll-free for most countries outside the United States. Students
living in areas outside this coverage are responsible for toll charges associated with this call.
IRB Approval
Walden’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviews each study conducted by Walden
students to determine if the anticipated benefits of the study outweigh the risks associated
with participation in it. While developing their proposal, students review the Research Ethics
Planning Worksheet and take part in IRB Office Hours if any questions arise from the
worksheet.. After the proposal has received final approval following the presentation,
students receive a notice from OSRA to submit their formal application directly to the IRB.
Note: No data may be collected until IRB approval is granted.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 5
Step
Description
Dissertation
Completion
Following IRB approval, students can collect and analyze their data and report their findings,
complete the remaining chapters of their dissertation, and prepare the abstract. They complete
a self-evaluation of the remaining chapters in the dissertation checklist as well as make any
needed updates to the proposal chapters so that dissertation reflects the most recent
understanding of the information. Students also complete another Turnitin report. Students
submit their clean dissertation, checklist, and Turnitin report under Final Study Committee
Rubric Analysis for the committee review. Note: The dissertation chair may again complete
a separate Turnitin report, which is submitted to the URR for review along with the
dissertation.
Dissertation
University
Research
Review
When the supervisory committee is satisfied that the full dissertation draft, including the
abstract, meet all the requirements specified in the minimum standards rubric, the chair
reconciles the Final Study Committee Rubric Analysis as approved and uploads the clean
dissertation, checklist, and Turnitin report. The URR then reviews the dissertation and
abstract, again using the minimum standards rubric, including items relevant to content,
analyses, reporting and interpreting results, form and style, and ethical issues related to
reporting results. The URR either approves the dissertation and abstract, which enables the
student to continue to the Form and Style review, or returns the documents with a set of
suggested revisions. The URR enters his or her review under Final Review – URR Rubric
Analysis. Students work with their committee to make any requested revisions.
Form and Style
Review
After URR approval of the dissertation and abstract, an editor conducts a Form and Style
review. Students must address the editor’s revisions and suggestions.
Oral Defense
Teleconference
After receipt of the Form and Style review, students present their dissertation via
teleconference scheduled with OSRA. Requests must be made at least 1 week in advance of
the meeting. This final oral defense is a formal discussion of the scholarly content of the
dissertation, followed by an evaluation of the dissertation. At this point, students may need to
revise the dissertation based on feedback during the teleconference as well as from the Form
and Style review. When the call is completed, the chair enters his or her review of the call
under Final Oral Presentation.
Final Quality
Committee
Review
After successful completion of the oral defense, students must submit their dissertation (with
all changes made and no track changes showing) under Final Overall Quality Committee
Rubric Analysis for the formal committee review. The committee members ensure that the
Form and Style edits were completed and review the final abstract for compliance with
university standards and quality. Committee members complete their reviews and, if the
dissertation is ready to go to the URR, the chair must reconcile Final Overall Quality
Committee Rubric Analysis as approved and upload the clean approved dissertation to the
approved reconciliation.
Final Quality
University
Research
Review
The URR ensures that the Form and Style edits were completed and reviews the final abstract
for compliance with university standards and quality. The URR enters the review under Final
Overall Quality URR Rubric Analysis. If approved, the URR uploads the clean approved
dissertation.
Chief Academic
Officer Review
After final URR approval, the abstract is sent to the university’s chief academic officer
(CAO) or designee as a final endorsement of the study. Revisions may be required at this
point, and these changes are facilitated through consultation with the chair and others. Upon
CAO approval, the dissertation is officially completed.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 6
Step
Description
ProQuest
Submission
To graduate from Walden University, students must submit their dissertation to ProQuest for
indexing. After this submission has been approved, students have completed all the
graduation requirements for the dissertation and their degree can be validated.
Beginning the Process
Students begin the dissertation phase of their program by completing their premise and then
prospectus; they receive the first two members of the dissertation committee: a chair and a
second committee member. Students can find more guidance in the Starting the Dissertation
Process document and in the Dissertation Premise Guide and Dissertation Prospectus Guide.
More detailed information on the committee can be found in the Dissertation Committee Process
document. These documents, forms, and additional supporting resources can be found on the
OSRA section of Walden’s Center for Research Quality website.
Developing the Premise
Students’ first step to completing the dissertation is developing the dissertation premise. This
document is used to identify a preliminary topic for the research and to help identify the faculty
members who will guide development of the dissertation prospectus. Students can find more
information in the Dissertation Premise Guide.
The premise consists of four parts: title, problem statement, approach for the study, and
references. An annotated outline and sample premise are included in the guide and can be used to
help create the premise document. The primary goal of students for the premise is to narrow the
dissertation topic to provide a general sense of the direction of the research.
The foundation for quality in every dissertation is a research question that reflects a high level of
conceptual manipulation and a significant and original contribution to knowledge or professional
practice. A brief litmus test of a doctoral-level research problem can be found in the Dissertation
Premise Guide as well as on the Research Resources page of Walden’s Center for Research
Quality website. These basic indicators appear throughout the dissertation process.
Every doctoral student’s journey is a little different, so it is difficult to say exactly when to start
the premise. All students should check their program of study and consult with the Academic
Advising Team. In general, however, because the premise is used to form their supervisory
committee, students should plan to start the premise toward completion of their core research
sequence and at least two quarters before beginning the dissertation prospectus, either in a
companion or dissertation course or a research forum (e.g., SBSF 7100, EDUC 8800). In the
quarter prior to starting their prospectus, students submit their premise to their faculty mentor or
course instructor (some education students submit the premise to their specialization coordinator,
so please check your program’s processes for specific instructions).
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 7
Note: The premise is used to help students form their dissertation supervisory committee, but
students will confirm their committee structure and finalize their topic at the end of the
prospectus development process.
Supervisory Committee
The dissertation supervisory committee is a unique feature of doctoral education. The primary
goal of the committee is to provide students with the guidance and support that they need to
conduct an independent research project of the highest quality and relevancy. Walden
dissertation supervisory committees are generally composed of three members: a committee
chair, a committee member, and a university research reviewer (URR). In some rare cases, a
fourth, external (non-Walden) member may be added to the committee to provide special
expertise.
A few guidelines are used to shape committee formation. Between the chair and second member,
someone must be designated as the context expert and someone as the methodologist; one
person cannot be designated for both roles. The dissertation chair must be from the students’
program. As some academic programs have further requirements for chairing a dissertation
committee, students should confirm with an advisor and/or the proposed chair that he or she is
eligible to chair the committee. Students should also be mindful of any department-mandated
core courses, pertinent residencies, and prerequisites that must be completed prior to committee
formation.
Committee Formation: Programs support you in the committee assignment process and ensure
that you have committee members who match your research study content area and methods
design. Programs have specific approaches for establishing committee assignments for students.
Please contact your program director or program coordinator directly for any questions related to
committee formation in your program.
Note: An approved chair is effective at the start of the following quarter, whereas a committee
member may become effective immediately, depending on when final approval is given to the
committee.
Writing the Prospectus
The dissertation prospectus builds on the premise and provides more information about the
dissertation research. Writing the prospectus helps students organize, delineate, and make
decisions regarding their topic and appropriate research style. An approved prospectus serves as
an agreed-upon plan for developing the proposal and finalizes the structure of the dissertation
supervisory committee. The Dissertation Prospectus Guide provides more details on the
document and process.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 8
The prospectus consists of several small sections, which are detailed in the annotated outline in
the Dissertation Prospectus Guide. The goal for the prospectus is to create a plan for developing
the dissertation proposal. Therefore, a student needs to have more information for the prospectus
than for the premise but does not need to know all the specific details of the study that will
ultimately be conducted. That remaining work will occur when the proposal is written. The final
draft of the prospectus is assessed against the quality indicators in the Dissertation Prospectus
Rubric.
Depending on the academic program, some students work with their chair in a companion course
that supports prospectus development. Students in Knowledge Area Module (KAM)-based
programs work on their prospectus in a Research Forum (e.g., EDUC 8800, SBSF 7100) with
their faculty mentor, who is now their committee chair. Other students may start their prospectus
in a course led by a senior member of the faculty in their area before moving into a dissertation
completion course with their chair. Yet other students may directly work with their chair in a
dissertation course, during which they complete the prospectus. Students should check their
program of study to know which path they will follow.
Like the proposal and dissertation, for which students will receive feedback on working drafts,
prospectus development is an iterative process. When the prospectus is completed, students
should follow the submission guidelines for their program. Generally, students submit a final
prospectus to their dissertation supervisory committee for review after completion of the core
research sequence but before taking any advanced research courses, and
• as required in the students’ dissertation course, if students are currently enrolled in this
course;
• toward the end of their time in a companion course, following the guidance of the chair; or
• prior to beginning the dissertation proposal in a Research Forum (e.g., EDUC 8800, SBSF
7100), following the guidance of the chair.
Registering for Credits
Students enrolled in a KAM-based program (PhD in Education or Management) are
automatically placed in a Research Forum (e.g., EDUC 8800, SBSF 7100) with the chair of their
dissertation supervisory committee. Students cannot register for this course themselves; they are
registered by their academic advisors after the appointment of their dissertation chair is
confirmed. Students remain registered in the Research Forum until successful completion of the
dissertation. The Office of the Registrar assigns all 20 dissertation credits when the final
academic audit is complete.
Students enrolled in a course-based program (PhD in Counselor Education and Supervision,
Criminal Justice, Education, Health Education and Promotion, Health Services, Human and
Social Services, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Management, Nursing, Psychology,
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 9
Public Health, Public Policy and Administration, or Social Work) must register for a total of 20
dissertation credits (exception: 12 credits for Counselor Education and Supervision). Registration
for the dissertation course (specific course numbers are dependent on the program) takes place
during the regular course registration period. Once registered for the first term, students are then
registered automatically for the dissertation course until the dissertation is formally approved by
the chief academic officer (CAO).
Students enrolled in a mixed-model program (PhD in Education, Management, or Public Policy
and Administration) must register for a total of 20 dissertation credits. Registration for the
dissertation course (specific course numbers are dependent on the program) takes place during
the regular course registration period. Once registered for the first term, students are then
registered automatically for the dissertation course until the dissertation is formally approved by
the CAO.
Note: Students who have an approved dissertation supervisory committee may register for the
dissertation course during any term in which they are working on the proposal and dissertation.
Students who have only a committee chair may register for the dissertation course, but they will
not be able to submit their proposal for review until they have an approved committee.
All students should check the Walden University Catalog regarding their program’s prerequisites
for enrolling in the dissertation course.
Review Tools
Checklists and Minimum Standards Rubric
Walden’s dissertation checklists and rubrics are used to operationalize Walden’s Dissertation
Statement. Each checklist is designed to assist students, dissertation supervisory committees, and
the university’s academic leadership by providing specific guidance regarding the content and
organization of the dissertation, while the Dissertation Minimum Standards Rubric is used to
determine whether a dissertation meets Walden’s standards. Students should download the
appropriate dissertation checklist when their committee and prospectus are approved.
Walden’s evaluations for dissertations follow a university-approved process, as described below:
• The purpose of the dissertation checklist is to guide students and dissertation supervisory
committees as they work together to develop high-quality doctoral proposals and
dissertations. The checklist should be shared with students early in their doctoral programs
and frequently used in advisement and courses to reflect Walden’s expectations for highquality dissertations. The checklist is designed to help ensure a rigorous reporting across the
common components that are used to build the dissertation.
• Specific dissertation checklists have been developed for use with studies employing
qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-research designs. As students begin the process of
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 10
•
•
•
•
developing a proposal for the dissertation, the specific checklist that best reflects the design
of the proposed dissertation study should be used.
As the proposal is developed and submitted for review to the dissertation supervisory
committee, each committee member should consult the most current version of the
dissertation checklist for detailed guidance, and then use the Dissertation Minimum
Standards Rubric to communicate his or her evaluations to the student, the chair, and any
other members of the committee. This process of ongoing evaluation and communication
continues throughout the development of the dissertation.
Detailed content elements are specified in the checklist for each chapter of the dissertation.
The subsections for each chapter include descriptions of substantive characteristics of the
dissertation, specifically related to the scholarly quality and integrity of the document.
Students annotate the page numbers where these substantive characteristics are found within
the dissertation. This documentation serves three important functions: (1) It presents the
general consensus of the Walden faculty regarding the specific content areas that should be
addressed within each chapter of an acceptable Walden dissertation, (2) it assists students in
reflecting on areas for improvement within the document, and (3) it helps guide the
committee members’ review of the documents.
A space for comments is provided for each chapter’s subgroup of substantive characteristics.
Comments provided by the evaluator (committee member) should refer to praiseworthy
aspects of the document and offer specific guidance for revision when needed. Comments
should provide formative evaluation for that particular chapter and be useful to the student
and other members of the dissertation supervisory committee. The spaces provided for
comment are not to be used for communicating line-by-line editing of the manuscript. If the
document is in need of editing, the committee member needs to comment to that effect but
provide any extensive comments in a separate communication, such as comments in the
document.
The use of a dissertation checklist is intended to support ongoing reflection and formative
feedback related to the specific subcomponents of the proposal and dissertation drafts as they
are developed into a comprehensive document that is internally consistent and aligned to
serve the purpose of the doctoral-level investigation. The Dissertation Minimum Standards
Rubric is applied by the members of the committee to verify that the substantive
characteristics of the dissertation guided by the checklist have been adequately demonstrated
to meet core quality standards. For the final copy of each document (either the proposal or
the dissertation), there must be unanimous approval by the dissertation supervisory
committee, including the URR, before the student proceeds to the oral defense (although
revisions may be required following the oral defense).
The checklist and minimum standards rubric aid students, along with their committee, in writing
the proposal for the dissertation. All forms and rubrics can be downloaded from the Center for
Research Quality website. Rubrics should be downloaded from the site for each study being
evaluated to ensure the most recent version is employed in the review.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 11
Caution: It is advisable to clear temporary files from the Internet browser before downloading any
official documents from the website. This will prevent reopening older versions of a document
that still reside in temporary files on the computer.
MyDR
My Doctoral Research (MyDR), which includes the Taskstream application, is a tool that allows
students to submit all research documents into a central online location for faculty review and
feedback. MyDR gives students a visual roadmap of their progress throughout the review
process.
It is important to note the difference between the preliminary sections (Proposal Preliminary
Development and Final Study Preliminary Development) and the formal committee review
sections (Proposal Committee Rubric Analysis and Final Study Committee Rubric Analysis)
in Taskstream. The preliminary sections are designed for the committee to provide feedback to
students to help develop the final version of their proposal or dissertation for the formal
committee review (i.e., the rubric analysis). Completing the preliminary sections does not count
as the formal committee review and will not move students forward to the URR review. The
preliminary sections are meant only to help students and committees communicate with each
other to draft the proposal or dissertation. Students are not required to complete the preliminary
sections; these sections are provided as a helpful tool only. The committee rubric analysis
sections are where the formal committee reviews take place. Completing the rubric analysis
sections will move students forward to the proposal or dissertation URR review.
Throughout the dissertation process, the URR, Form and Style editors, and CAO or CAO’s
designee generally have a 2-week time frame to complete their review. The return of dissertation
drafts takes longer than other graded classroom assignments. If reviewers need a longer time to
review the dissertation, they should inform the student and the committee chair should suggest
activities the student can undertake during this time. Please note: Faculty members are not
expected to review research drafts between terms, outside of what is required for end-of-term
grading. Any research draft submitted within 5 days of the final day of the term may not receive
detailed feedback until approximately 10 days into the subsequent term. If the review takes place
during any of the official Walden holidays (New Year’s Day; Martin Luther King, Jr. Day;
Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor Day; Thanksgiving Day; day after Thanksgiving; or
Christmas Day), the holiday will not count in the review cycle. It is important to note that MyDR,
which includes a general 14-day review timeline, does not adjust for holidays and end-of-terms,
so any late notices received from the workflow as a result of a holiday are not an accurate
reflection of the review time frame.
More detailed information on MyDR can be found on the research center’s website.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 12
Developing the Proposal
The proposal consists of the first three chapters of the dissertation document and an APA-style
reference list. The proposal presents a detailed plan of the proposed research for the dissertation
and describes a specific idea, the related literature, and the intended research methodology.
Students should consult with their committee chair early and frequently when developing the
proposal. With guidance from their supervisory committee, students conceptualize a topic,
organize and synthesize the literature, and determine a research methodology appropriate to the
subject matter.
Additional details and information on developing and writing the proposal and dissertation are
found within this guidebook, on the OSRA website, and on the Walden Writing Center’s
Doctoral Capstone Form and Style site, which includes helpful templates.
Gaining Committee Approval of the Proposal
To help clarify the research framework for the project, a student’s committee chair reviews drafts
of the proposal, along with a completed Research Ethics Planning Worksheet. When satisfied
that the proposal meets the university criteria outlined in the Dissertation Minimum Standards
Rubric, the chair authorizes the student to submit the proposal and Research Ethics Planning
Worksheet to the other committee member for review.
After the chair has deemed that the proposal is ready, he or she will submit it for Turnitin review.
At the same time, the student completes and submits a Turnitin self-evaluation to the chair, with
a plan for revisions if warranted. After the chair has determined Turnitin compliance and
believes the proposal is ready, the chair authorizes the student to submit the document for the
formal committee review. Students must submit their proposal (after making all required
changes), dissertation checklist, and Turnitin report under Proposal Committee Rubric
Analysis in Taskstream.
The committee members generally have 2 weeks (14 calendar days, not including holidays) to
review the proposal draft and Research Ethics Planning Worksheet. Guided by the student’s
annotated checklist, the second committee member uses the Dissertation Minimum Standards
Rubric to evaluate the proposal and shares evaluations with the chair. The committee member
may assist the chair in providing feedback to the student on revisions requested; committee
members generally have an additional 2-week time frame within which to review each
subsequent round of revisions.
After both members of a student’s committee complete a minimum standards rubric reflecting
that no further changes are necessary, the proposal is ready for review by the committee URR.
The chair must reconcile the Proposal Committee Rubric Analysis as having “Met” the
requirements and upload the approved review documents (clean proposal, checklist, and Turnitin
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 13
report) to the approved reconciliation. Then the MyDR system moves the student forward to the
URR review.
Gaining URR Approval of the Proposal
The URR must enter his or her review under Proposal URR Rubric Analysis. Informed by the
student’s annotated dissertation checklist, the URR completes an initial review of the proposal
using the Dissertation Minimum Standards Rubric, including items relevant to content,
methodology, form and style, and ethical procedures. At this stage, if needed, the URR can refer
the student for mandatory consultation with the IRB office or the Writing Center to address
ethical or writing concerns, respectively. The URR is obligated to make these referrals should he
or she note significant ethical or writing concerns.
If the URR returns the proposal for revisions, the MyDR system will move the student back to
Proposal Committee Rubric Analysis. The committee works with the student to make the
requested revisions. When the chair believes that the URR revisions have been made, the student
must submit the revised work under Proposal Committee Rubric Analysis. That stage must be
completed again before a new URR review can take place. The URR then reviews the revised
materials. This process continues until the URR approves the proposal as meeting university
criteria outlined in the Dissertation Minimum Standards Rubric. After URR approval under
Proposal URR Rubric Analysis, the student can commence with the oral defense.
Proposal Oral Presentation
After the URR enters his or her approval under Proposal URR Rubric Analysis, the MyDR
system notifies the student, committee, and OSRA about that approval to move forward in the
process. After everyone is notified, the proposal oral presentation may commence. The student
presents the proposal via teleconference with the committee members. The URR does not
participate in the proposal oral presentation unless there are compelling reasons that necessitate
the URR’s attendance. The oral presentation is a formal discussion of the proposal to identify
any concerns to be addressed in the final version of the proposal or issues that may arise as the
student moves forward with the dissertation. The teleconference is led by the committee chair.
Note: Walden provides a conference call service for the oral defense that is toll-free for most
countries outside the United States. Students living in areas outside this coverage are responsible
for toll charges associated with this call.
The proposal oral presentation must be recorded. Instructions are provided to the committee
chair for starting and terminating the recording. Teleconferences are made public within the
Walden University community; the e-mailed reservation includes instructions regarding a
privacy option. Upon request, the research service specialist can e-mail a link to the recording of
the conference within 72 hours of holding the call. Recordings of teleconference calls are
archived for 30 days.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 14
Scheduling the Teleconference
To schedule the teleconference, students should identify several commonly available dates and
times among those participating in the teleconference (i.e., student and committee members).
That information should be forwarded to the committee chair who will then use the Conference
Call Reservation form (located on the Walden website) to submit the request to OSRA to reserve
the date and time that is convenient for the participants. Note: Reservation forms must be
submitted at least 1 week prior to the teleconference date requested.
A confirmation of the request is sent to all participants with instructions for calling in at the
appointed date and time. Before the call, students should ask the chair to clarify any expectations
of the content of the conference call, if necessary. The call information is found on the student
MyDR web landing page.
Oral Presentation Outcome
If the committee believes that the student did not pass the proposal oral presentation, the chair
must enter “Not Met” under Proposal Oral Presentation. The MyDR system will then notify
OSRA about the outcome, prompting OSRA to clear the Proposal Oral Presentation section
and advise the student and committee to schedule a second proposal oral presentation. The
student does not have to submit the updated proposal in MyDR if the committee determines that
the student did not successfully complete the oral defense.
If the committee believes that the student did pass the proposal oral presentation, the chair must
enter “Met” under Proposal Oral Presentation and upload the clean approved proposal. Once
the approval has been entered, the MyDR system will process the approval overnight.
Getting Approval for Research
Approval from Walden’s IRB prior to beginning any research is required of all students, faculty
members, and staff members who undertake research studies, including a dissertation, that grow
out of their affiliation with the university or that involve interviewing, surveying, testing,
treating, and/or experimentally manipulating human participants or archival data on human
subjects. All researchers, including students, can download the current version of the IRB
application and instructions from the Research Ethics and Compliance section of Walden’s
Center for Research Quality website.
The IRB reviews all students’ applications and determines if their proposed research complies
with accepted ethical standards. Walden does not accept responsibility or liability for research
conducted without the IRB’s approval, and the university will not accept or grant credit for
student work where the student has failed to comply with its policies and procedures related to
ethical standards in research. Note: A repeat of the proposal URR process can be required by the
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 15
committee, the IRB, or the CAO at any time if ethical or pragmatic concerns necessitate
substantial revisions to a URR-approved proposal.
The Purpose of the IRB
The IRB is primarily concerned with ensuring ethical practice and protection of participants in
all studies, particularly those involving
• protected classes (e.g., children, elderly, prisoners, or cognitively and/or mentally impaired
individuals);
• potential challenges identifying subjects or obtaining informed consent;
• deception of subjects;
• potential coercion; or
• sensitive data collection topics or methods that require extra privacy protections.
The IRB’s purpose is to evaluate proposed data collection procedures to ensure that the risk to
subjects is minimized or eliminated and that the study complies with commonly accepted ethical
principles for human subject research.
The IRB’s authority is consultative to the CAO, or designee, with regard to the approval of
proposed research studies.
IRB Application Process
Students may not initiate data collection until they receive written (e-mail) notification from the
IRB of approval to conduct research. This prohibition includes all aspects of data collection,
including recruitment of subjects; advertising; mailing or distributing consent forms;
interviewing; surveying; data gathering; and so on.
After their proposal has received final approval, students receive a notice from OSRA to submit
the formal IRB application that is posted on the IRB website. The IRB works with students to
ascertain that all necessary materials and partner site approvals have been submitted. The IRB
has the authority to require revision of students’ requests, to ensure compliance with the
university’s policy on ethical standards in research.
Note: Data collected without IRB review and approval cannot be included in the dissertation.
Prohibited activities conducted prior to IRB approval do not fall under the legal protection of the
university.
Completing the Dissertation
After the IRB application has been approved, students can conduct their research, collect and
analyze the data, report their findings, and draw their conclusions. With the guidance of their
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 16
committee, students write Chapters 4 and 5 of the dissertation as well as the dissertation abstract.
At this time, students should also make any needed updates to the proposal chapters so that
dissertation reflects the most recent understanding of the information.
Required Data Storage
Students are required to maintain all raw data—interview tapes, spreadsheets, questionnaire
results, and so forth—for no less than 5 years upon completion of their dissertation. For
safekeeping, students should store copies of data in two different locations.
Reporting the Findings
Committee guidance and requirements can vary as to the best way to report findings. For
example, some committees ask students to place lengthy portions of interviews—raw data—in
Chapter 4 of the dissertation. Other committees request that interview transcripts appear in an
appendix; still others do not require raw data to be included in the dissertation at all but ask that
interview notes and tapes be kept in a secure location for later review, if necessary. Students
should follow their committee members’ suggestions and requirements in presenting and
analyzing the data.
As is often the case in scholarship—and most forms of writing, students must first weigh the
needs of the audience and publisher with their own, because no two situations are alike. Thus,
when reporting their research, students should be concerned less with prescribed rules and more
with (a) accuracy and integrity, (b) protection of confidential sources, and (c) ease of reading;
however, students will need to adhere to rules related to APA formatting. Several common issues
related to confidentiality, interviews, and participant and/or observer notes bear mentioning.
Confidentiality of Sources
Research participants are never identified in a dissertation and site identities are typically masked
to protect the privacy of individuals who provided data (though completely masking the site’s
identity is not always possible). Students are obligated to inform participants and managers of
research sites that all Walden dissertations enter the public arena.
How students refer to anonymized locales and participants can vary. The reader should know the
part of the world (i.e., region) where the research took place but naming the city is not typical.
Students should introduce the pseudonym for an organization with a sentence such as the
following: To ensure confidentiality, the facility will be referred to as XYZ Medical Clinic
throughout this dissertation.
Students may refer to participants as Participant 1 or P1, by any other logical abbreviation, or by
a pseudonym. Students should inform their readers in the narrative if pseudonyms will be used
throughout.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 17
For more information about maintaining confidentiality, students should contact the IRB office
at irb@mail.waldenu.edu.
Integrity and Accuracy
A predetermined bias by some writers leads almost invariably to selective use of quotations to
support their position. However, as a scholarly researcher, students are obligated to report
findings as completely, accurately, and objectively as possible, lest the integrity of the narrative
be compromised. The reader expects that the speaker’s actual words are reported and portrayed
in an honest context, including judicious use of blatant grammatical errors and vulgar language.
Students should be prepared to negotiate with the committee and the study participants and
stakeholders what the word judicious implies.
Use an ellipsis to show that some words have been deleted or brackets to indicate that words
have been changed or added. If a substantial portion of an interview is deleted or changed,
paraphrase that section of the interview. Students should refer to the APA style manual for more
details about maintaining the accuracy of quotations.
Formatting Interview Transcripts
In many qualitative dissertations, portions of interview transcripts appear in the narrative,
particularly in Chapter 4. Although students should follow their committee members’ guidance
regarding reporting and analysis of data, students should remember that an important goal is to
help the reader navigate the text. As such, writers must be consistent and try to format the text
with the reader in mind. APA’s 40-word rule for quotations may be helpful here: If an interview
excerpt is 40 words or longer, the transcript should be set off in block form. (The Crediting
Sources section provides more detail on formatting quotations.) Establishing a consistent pattern
whereby all transcript segments are set off in block form may be helpful.
The committee may require a listing of all interview dates. Here too, students have choices,
depending on how the integrity of the transcriptions is established, while also aiding the reader
during what can become a tedious journey. Citing specific dates for each interview may seem
obtrusive. Some writers offer in the narrative a summary statement of this sort: Unless otherwise
noted, all interviews took place between May 1, 2015, and May 21, 2015. If complete transcripts
are in an appendix, students could list the actual dates of the interviews.
The following narrative represents one way to handle these tasks:
Ms. T., a 30-year-old woman who said she needed “welfare” because of an
“emergency,” described the atmosphere in the food stamp office as “cold, dreary, and
uninviting.” When pressed, Ms. T.’s face became red, revealing the anger that
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 18
underscored her words:
I do not see why I should be treated like a criminal when I seek assistance in a
time of need. Them workers act like they are doing you a big . . . favor by pulling
up your case file. Lord knows that food stamp office is the last place I want to be,
waiting 4 hours to talk to my caseworker and then just hearing all that
[nonsense].
The segment included information about the source of the quotation, placed unobtrusively in the
writer’s introductory paragraph, which led into a smooth transition to the interview excerpt.
In some instances, it may be effective to include several excerpts from an interview transcript.
This should be done with purpose, when it is necessary to present elements of a discussion; for
example, a back-and-forth exchange between participants in a focus group or the researcher and
a participant (as opposed to a quotation from a single participant). When including an excerpt
from a transcript, again only when necessary, format the excerpt by indenting the first line of text
0.5 in., but use a hanging indent for the second line of text from each speaker. This will help the
reader track the different speakers. For example:
Focus group participants were divided in their responses to RQ4 and openly
disagreed with one another. This transcript excerpt is one example of several instances
where participants presented contradictory information, even regarding experiences
with the same managers:
Interviewer: So, what you’re saying is that your managers do not enforce the
policy?
Participant 1: No, my manager does not. She has instructed us to go with our
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 19
gut on some of these issues and doesn't want to follow any formal rules.
Each situation may be different.
Participant 2: I would actually say the opposite. My manager does not want
us to take any actions that are not supported by the written rules of the
policy. We need to be able to defend our actions, and we need the policy
to back that up.
Participant 3: That’s funny [Participant 2], because I have the same manager,
and I actually had him tell me the opposite once. He asked me to do
something that was against policy but to keep it quiet.
Participant and/or Observer Field Notes
First-person point of view may be used as appropriate, as guided by APA and as discussed on the
Writing Center website.
Committee Review
The committee chair reviews preliminary drafts of the complete dissertation manuscript. When
satisfied that the manuscript sufficiently meets university criteria, the chair authorizes the student
to submit the document through MyDR for review.
After the chair has deemed that the dissertation is ready, he or she may submit it for Turnitin
review. At the same time, the student must complete and submit a Turnitin self-evaluation to the
chair, with a plan for revisions if warranted. After the chair has determined Turnitin compliance
and believes the dissertation is ready, the chair authorizes the student to continue the process
through MyDR. Students must submit their clean dissertation, dissertation checklist, and Turnitin
report under Final Review Committee Rubric Analysis for the formal committee review.
Committee members generally have 2 weeks (not including holidays) to evaluate the
dissertation. If committee members need a longer time to review the dissertation, they should
inform the student and suggest activities the student can undertake during this time. Guided by
the student’s annotated dissertation checklist, the second committee member uses the
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 20
Dissertation Minimum Standards Rubric to share evaluations with the committee chair. The
second member may assist the chair in providing feedback to the student on further revisions
requested; an additional 14 calendar days are allotted to committee members for each subsequent
round of revisions. After the chair and committee member have entered their individual reviews,
the chair must reconcile the Final Review Committee Rubric Analysis as “Met” and upload the
approved review documents (clean dissertation, checklist, and Turnitin report) to the approved
reconciliation. Then the system moves the dissertation forward to the URR review.
Gaining URR Approval of the Dissertation
The URR must enter his or her review under Final Review URR Rubric Analysis.
Informed by the student’s annotated checklist, the URR reviews the full dissertation (primarily
focusing on Chapters 4 and 5) and the abstract, using the Dissertation Minimum Standards
Rubric, including items relevant to content, analyses, reporting and interpreting results, form and
style, and ethical issues related to reporting results. (Again, the URR can refer students for
mandatory consultation with the IRB office or the Writing Center to address ethical or writing
concerns, respectively.)
If the URR returns the dissertation for revisions, the MyDR system moves the student back to
Final Study Committee Rubric Analysis. When the chair believes that the URR revisions have
been made, the student must submit the revised work under Final Study Committee Rubric
Analysis. That review stage must be completed again before a new URR review can take place.
This process continues until the URR approves the dissertation to move forward.
After the URR provides approval, the dissertation moves forward to the Form and Style review.
Optional Pre-Oral Teleconference
At the request of the URR or committee chair, an optional pre-oral conference can be scheduled
to discuss recommendations of the URR and reach agreement about changes that are necessary
before the oral defense of the dissertation. It is recommended that the pre-oral conference be held
if the URR has raised serious concerns and/or if the committee requests the opportunity for
discussion and clarification. The purpose of the pre-oral conference is to prevent multiple
submissions and reviews of the dissertation and thus facilitate the process of completion. Note:
A pre-oral conference will not be recorded.
Scheduling the Optional Pre-Oral Teleconference
Once the URR enters his or her approval under Final Study URR Rubric Analysis, the MyDR
system notifies the student, committee, and OSRA about that approval. Once everyone is
notified, the pre-oral conference may commence. To schedule the teleconference, students
should identify several commonly available dates and times among those participating in the
teleconference. That information should be forwarded to the committee chair who will then use
the Conference Call Reservation form (which is located on the Walden site) to submit the
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 21
request to OSRA to reserve the date and time that is convenient for the participants. Note:
Reservation forms must be submitted at least 1 week prior to the teleconference date requested.
A confirmation of the request will be sent to all participants with instructions for calling in at the
appointed date and time. Before the call, students should ask the chair to clarify any expectations
of the content of the conference call, if necessary.
Form and Style Review
A dissertation goes to Form and Style review before the final oral presentation. The editor
generally has up to 2 weeks to review the document: The review cycle begins the day after
submission. Manuscripts are reviewed in the order in which they are received, and turnaround
varies by the volume of submitted dissertations, which increases at commencement deadlines.
Submissions that are missing any basic required component (e.g., abstract, reference list) or that
still contain editing marks from previous reviewers may be returned by the editor as incomplete
and not ready for review until the appropriate items are included and comments or edits from
previous reviewers have been addressed and no tracked changes are present. In these cases, the
manuscript is returned for additional work, and the student and committee are notified as to next
steps. The 14 calendar days afforded the editor for the review does not begin until the editor
receives a complete and clean document.
Note: Dissertation documents must be submitted for the Form and Style review as a single
Microsoft Word document. Form and style guidelines are found in Part 3 of this guidebook.
Outcome of the Form and Style Review
After the dissertation has been submitted for the Form and Style review, students may work with
their chair to schedule their oral defense. Students may collect convenient dates and times for
their dissertation teleconference while their paper is being reviewed; however, the teleconference
may not be scheduled or held until after the paper has been received back from the Form and
Style review. Therefore, students should not attempt to schedule an oral defense within the 2week time frame afforded the editor to complete the review. The oral conference should be
scheduled to take place no sooner than the day following the due date of the Form and Style
review.
Upon receipt of the completed Form and Style review and in consultation with the committee
chair, students must address the Form and Style editor’s revisions and suggestions.
If questions concerning academic integrity arise as a result of the review, the Form and Style
editor contacts the committee chair, URR, and program director with his or her concerns. Refer
to the guidelines in the Walden University Student Handbook concerning academic integrity.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 22
Oral Defense
The oral defense is a formal discussion of the scholarly content of the dissertation and an
evaluation of the paper. Students present their full dissertation via a required teleconference with
their committee members. The teleconference is led by the committee chair. All committee
members except the URR are required to participate in the oral defense. Walden provides a
conference call service for the oral defense that is toll-free for most countries outside the United
States. Students living in areas outside this coverage are responsible for toll charges associated
with this call.
The oral defense may commence only after the committee members have reviewed the current
draft of the student’s dissertation and have reached consensus as to its level of development by
using the guidelines of the Dissertation Minimum Standards Rubric. The teleconference may not
be held until after the student’s paper has been received back from the Form and Style review;
however, edits suggested during the Form and Style review do not have to be made before the
teleconference.
Note: Walden asks that both committee members receive a copy of the most recent version of the
dissertation at least 3 days before the teleconference takes place.
The oral defense of the dissertation must be recorded. Instructions are provided to the committee
chair for starting and terminating the recording. Teleconferences are made public within the
Walden community; the e-mailed reservation includes instructions regarding a privacy option.
Upon request, the research service specialist can e-mail a link to the recording of the conference
within 72 hours of holding the call.
Scheduling the Teleconference
Students should identify several commonly available dates and times among those participating
in the teleconference (i.e., the committee members). That information should be forwarded to the
committee chair, who will then use the Conference Call Reservation form (which is located on
the Walden site) to submit the request to OSRA to reserve the date and time that is convenient
for the participants. Note: Reservation forms must be submitted at least 1 week prior to the
teleconference date requested.
A confirmation of the request will be sent to all participants from the MyDR system with
instructions for calling in at the appointed date and time. Prior to the call, students should ask the
chair to clarify any expectations of the content of the conference call, if necessary.
Oral Defense Outcome
If the committee thinks that the student did not pass the final oral presentation, the chair must
enter “Not Met” under Final Oral Presentation. The MyDR system then notifies OSRA about
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 23
the outcome, prompting OSRA to clear the Final Oral Presentation section and advise the
student and committee to schedule a second final oral presentation. The student does not have to
submit the updated dissertation in MyDR if the committee determines that the student did not
successfully complete the oral defense.
If the committee thinks that the student did pass the final oral presentation, the chair must enter
“Met” under Final Oral Presentation and upload the clean approved dissertation. Once the
approval has been entered, the MyDR system will process the approval overnight, and OSRA
will send an e-mail confirming the approval and saying that the student can move forward to the
final committee review under Final Overall Quality Committee Rubric Analysis.
Final Approval and Submission
After students receive approval of their final oral presentation, they must submit the clean
dissertation under Final Overall Quality Committee Rubric Analysis. The chair and
committee member must enter their individual reviews. The committee members ensure that the
Form and Style edits were completed and review the final abstract for compliance with
university standards and quality. If the committee believes that the dissertation is ready to go to
the URR, the chair must reconcile the Final Overall Quality Committee Rubric Analysis as
“Met” and upload the clean dissertation to the approved reconciliation.
At this time, the URR conducts a final review to make sure all methodological, content, and
writing issues have been addressed. In addition, the URR reviews the abstract to make sure it
meets university guidelines. The URR conducts any additional reviews that are necessary until
the final copy, including abstract, meets full approval. The URR must enter his or her review
under Final Overall Quality URR Rubric Analysis. If the URR approves the documents to
move forward to the CAO review, the URR must upload the clean, approved dissertation and
abstract. The CAO review generally takes place within a 2-week time frame. If changes are
necessary and a resubmission to the CAO is required for approval, an additional 2-week time
frame is generally allotted to the CAO for each subsequent review.
When the CAO grants approval, the MyDR system generates an e-mail confirming the approval
and providing instructions on how to submit the dissertation to ProQuest (see next section).
OSRA sends the approval page in a separate e-mail when notified about the CAO approval.
ProQuest
After approval from the CAO has been communicated, students receive instructions for online
submission of their dissertation to ProQuest. ProQuest produces microfilms or indexed database
of dissertations and publishes the abstracts online and in its monthly publication, Dissertation
Abstracts International. To be validated for graduation from Walden University, students
must submit and have their dissertation approved to be included in ProQuest.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 24
The research service specialist completes one last Form and Style check on the submitted
document to ensure that it conforms to APA formatting. The dissertation may be sent back to
students for requested revisions if errors are found.
Here are some aspects of the ProQuest process that students should keep in mind:
•
Students may opt to have ProQuest file an application for copyright on their behalf. If
students choose this option, they must note it when completing the electronic submission
form.
• There is no fee for inclusion of the dissertation in ProQuest if the “Traditional Publishing”
option is chosen. Students are responsible for any fees related to copyright or any other
services provided by ProQuest.
For questions related to publishing the dissertation, students should contact ProQuest at 1-877408-5027 or visit its website.
Students are notified when OSRA formally accepts their submission to ProQuest.
Degree Validation
After the ProQuest submission is accepted, an automated request is sent to the Office of the
Registrar (graduation@mail.waldenu.edu) to complete the students’ final audits and validate
their degrees. Students will know the audit is complete when they receive their final bill from the
bursar’s office.
Students’ tuition charges stop as of the date they receive CAO approval of their dissertation. If
students receive CAO approval within the first 7 days of a term, they are not charged tuition for
that term. If students receive approval later in the term, they will be charged prorated tuition.
Students who want to participate in the summer commencement ceremony must have their
dissertation approved no later than the last business day of the spring term. Students who want to
participate in the winter commencement ceremony must have their dissertation approved no later
than the last business day of the fall term. Note: Students are not automatically registered for
commencement. If students want to attend a commencement ceremony, they must register.
Survey of Earned Doctorates
Upon acceptance of the ProQuest submission, the OSRA sends students the Survey of Earned
Doctorates. They should complete this survey from the link provided in the e-mail.
The National Science Foundation and four other agencies sponsor the Survey of Earned
Doctorates. The purpose of this survey is to evaluate graduate education programs at the federal,
state, and university levels. By submitting the completed survey to Walden, students add to the
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 25
university’s visibility among national graduate institutions. Completion of the survey is not
required, but it is strongly encouraged.
Academic Integrity and Plagiarism
Walden University regards academic honesty to be essential to the entire academic enterprise
and treats academic integrity violations very seriously. No student shall claim credit for another’s
work or accomplishments or use another’s ideas in a written paper or presentation without
appropriate attribution through proper documentation. The consequences of plagiarism and other
forms of academic dishonesty, including but not limited to providing false information or
altering documents submitted to the university, are discussed in the Walden University Student
Handbook. (Select the handbook from the drop-down menu, then select “Section 3. Student
Expectations and Responsibilities,” followed by “Student Conduct and Responsibilities” and
“Code of Conduct.”)
The Crediting Sources section of this guidebook provides more information regarding
plagiarism. For a detailed discussion of the ethics of scholarly writing, Chapter 1 of the APA
style manual is another resource.
Walden uses a service provided by Turnitin.com to check manuscripts for plagiarism. Any
content that may not have been cited or appropriately paraphrased and synthesized will be further
examined, which may slow completion of the dissertation process. A Turnitin and Academic
Integrity Online Tutorial on the Academic Skills Center website provides instructions on how to
identify and avoid plagiarism.
Walden understands that progression through the dissertation process can be a demanding
endeavor and that students can find themselves feeling stressed or frustrated. Nonetheless, the
university expects that students will continue to maintain a high level of professionalism when
communicating with their committee, academic leadership, and staff. Behavior that is not
consistent with the university’s expectations may result in a Code of Conduct referral. Students
are encouraged to respond appropriately to constructive feedback and follow up unresolved
concerns by seeking assistance from their academic leadership.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 26
Part 2. Evaluation in MyDR
The following three tables present all the dissertation supervisory committee members’ duties at
each evaluation stage of the document, using the MyDR process.
Proposal
Proposal Committee Rubric Analysis and Proposal URR Rubric Analysis
Chair Evaluation
Upon student
submission, the chair
evaluates the proposal
under Proposal
Committee Rubric
Analysis.
If scored as
requirements “Not Met,”
the chair returns the
proposal to the student
without input from the
second committee
member.
Second Member
Evaluation
Upon the chair’s
evaluation of
“Met,” the
second member
completes an
evaluation under
Proposal
Committee
Rubric Analysis.
If scored as
requirements “Met,” the
proposal is evaluated by
the second committee
member.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Chair Reconciliation
Following the second
member’s evaluation, the
chair reconciles the committee
evaluations appropriately
based on the second member
evaluation and their own
(“Met” or “Not Met”).
Upon a reconciliation of Not
Met, the chair combines
committee feedback and
attaches all documents
uploaded in the individual
evaluations. There should be
at least one score of 0 (zero)
recorded in the reconciliation
rubric.
Upon a reconciliation of Met,
the chair uploads the proposal,
checklist, and antiplagiarism
report to the reconciliation for
the URR to access and review.
There should be no scores of 0
(zero) recorded in the
reconciliation rubric.
URR Evaluation
Upon system notification, the
URR completes an evaluation
under Proposal URR Rubric
Analysis, with the outcome of
the evaluation either approved
to move forward or revisions
required to the document or the
antiplagiarism report.
The URR provides feedback on
the manuscript through the use
of tracked changes and
comments. At this stage, the
URR should refer the student
for mandatory consultation with
the IRB office or the Writing
Center to address any major
ethical or writing concerns,
respectively. (Note: URRs are
obligated to make IRB and/or
Writing Center referrals should
they note significant ethical or
writing concerns.)
Page 27
Final Study
Final Study Committee Rubric Analysis and Final Study URR Rubric Analysis
Chair Evaluation
Upon student
submission, the chair
evaluates the dissertation
under Final Study
Committee Rubric
Analysis.
If scored as requirements
“Not Met,” the chair
returns the final study to
the student without input
from the second
committee member.
Second Member
Evaluation
Upon the chair’s
evaluation of
“Met,” the second
member
completes an
evaluation under
Final Study
Committee
Rubric Analysis.
If scored as requirements
“Met,” the final study is
evaluated by the second
committee member.
Chair Reconciliation
Following the second
member’s evaluation, the chair
reconciles the committee
evaluations appropriately
based on the second member
evaluation and their own
(“Met” or “Not Met”).
Upon a reconciliation of Not
Met, the chair combines
committee feedback and
attaches all documents
uploaded in the individual
evaluations. There should be
at least one score of 0 (zero)
recorded in the reconciliation
rubric.
Upon a reconciliation of Met,
the chair uploads the final
study, checklist, and
antiplagiarism report to the
reconciliation for the URR to
access and review. There
should be no scores of 0 (zero)
recorded in the reconciliation
rubric.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
URR Evaluation
Upon system notification, the
URR completes an evaluation
under Final Study URR Rubric
Analysis, with the outcome of
the evaluation either approved
to move forward or revisions
required to the document or the
antiplagiarism report.
The URR provides feedback on
the manuscript through the use
of tracked changes and
comments. At this time, the
URR should recommend that
the student seek assistance from
the Writing Center to address
writing concerns, if applicable.
Upon final study approval, the
URR uploads a clean copy of
the final study for the Form and
Style reviewers to access and
review.
**If the Form and Style review
decision is “Not Met,” the
process begins again with
student submission under Final
Study Committee Rubric
Analysis, committee evaluation
and chair reconciliation, and
eventual URR reevaluation
under Final Study URR Rubric
Analysis.
Page 28
Final Overall Quality
Final Overall Quality Committee Rubric Analysis and Final Overall Quality URR Rubric Analysis
Chair Evaluation
Upon student
submission, the chair
evaluates the final study
submission under Final
Overall Quality
Committee Rubric
Analysis.
Second Member
Evaluation
Upon the chair’s
evaluation of
“Met,” the second
member completes
an evaluation under
Final Overall
Quality Committee
Rubric Analysis.
If scored as requirements
“Not Met,” the chair
returns the final study to
the student without input
from the second
committee member.
If scored as requirements
“Met,” the final study is
evaluated by the second
committee member.
Chair Reconciliation
Following the second
member’s evaluation, the
chair reconciles the
committee evaluations
appropriately based on the
second member evaluation
and their own. Note there is
no option in this stage to
reconcile as Not Met.
Minimum standards of the
final study were already
evaluated as requirements
Met in the previous final
study stage. Only the first
reviewer or URR has the
option to return for revisions
during the final quality
review.
The chair should upload the
final study to the
reconciliation for the URR
to access and review. There
should be no scores of 0
(zero) recorded in the
reconciliation rubric.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
URR Evaluation
Upon system notification, the
URR completes an evaluation
under Final Overall Quality
URR Rubric Analysis, with the
outcome of the evaluation either
approved to move forward or
revisions required to the
document.
Upon final study approval, the
URR uploads a clean copy of
the final study for the CAO
reviewer to access and
review.**
**If CAO revisions are
requested, the process begins
again with student submission
under Final Overall Quality
Committee Rubric Analysis,
followed by committee
evaluation and chair
reconciliation, and eventual
URR reevaluation under Final
Overall Quality URR Rubric
Analysis.
Page 29
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 30
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 31
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 32
Part 3. Style: APA and Walden
University
Students writing dissertations must use the sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the
American Psychological Association (APA style manual). Additional specific requirements for
Walden University dissertations, above and beyond APA style, are included in this guidebook. In
rare instances where Walden’s requirements conflict with the APA style manual, the university
style standards prevail. These items are indicated in this guidebook by green boxes.
Students are encouraged to download the dissertation template from the Walden Writing Center
website.
The following sections are intended to supplement guidelines and instructions that appear in the
dissertation template, Form and Style checklist, dissertation checklist, Dissertation Minimum
Standards Rubric, and other information sources.
Overall Structure
The Walden dissertation consists of the following sections, in this order:
1. Abstract title page.
2. Abstract.
3. Title page.
4. Dedication page (optional).
5. Acknowledgments page (optional).
6. Table of Contents (including List of Tables and List of Figures pages, if necessary;
begin the pagination of the preliminary pages with i centered in the footer of the first
page of the Table of Contents).
7. Body of the paper (begin the pagination with 1 in the upper right corner of the first page
of Chapter 1; paginate consecutively on every page to the last page of the document).
8. Reference list.
9. Appendices (optional).
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 33
Abstract
Concise and well-written abstracts highlight the richness of the students’ research. A complete
abstract primer can be found on Walden’s Center for Research Quality’s website Research
Planning and Writing page or on the Doctoral Capstone Resources website.
The following summary outlines important points to keep in mind.
Abstract Content
•
•
•
•
•
•
In the first few sentences of the abstract, describe the overall research problem being
addressed and indicate why it is important (i.e., who would care if the problem is solved).
Note: Students can include a general introduction of the issue in the first sentence, but they
need to quickly move to a clear statement of the research problem being addressed.
Identify the purpose and theoretical foundations, if appropriate.
Summarize the key research question(s).
Concisely describe the overall research design and methods.
Identify the key results from the data analysis.
Conclude with a statement on the implications for positive social change.
Form and Style Tips
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Limit the abstract to a single paragraph, with no indentation, contained on one page.
Maintain the scholarly language used throughout the dissertation.
Keep the abstract concise, accurate, and readable. Use correct English.
Make sure each sentence adds value to the reader’s understanding of the research.
Use the full name or phrase of any abbreviation, and include the abbreviation in parentheses
only if it is used again in the abstract; the abbreviation must be reintroduced the first time it
appears in the narrative chapters.
Do not include references or citations in the abstract.
With the exception of numbers that begin sentences, write all numbers as numerals in the
abstract.
Do not use first-person singular in the abstract.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 34
•
•
•
•
•
The abstract title page is the cover page of the Walden dissertation. It is identical to
the main title page except the word Abstract appears at the top of the page, centered.
The Walden abstract is limited to one page.
The abstract is double spaced, with the text the same point size and font as in the
dissertation body text, is one block paragraph, and conforms with the abstract margins
in the appropriate capstone template.
No page number appears on the abstract page.
Although keywords are listed at the end of the sample abstract in the APA manual,
Walden dissertation abstracts do not include keywords.
Common Abstract Problems
The following issues could delay the approval of the abstract:
• There are grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors.
• Identified abbreviations have not been used more than once in the abstract.
• The research problem, research question, or purpose of the study is unclear.
• There is misalignment between the research problem, research question, methods, results, or
implications.
• The question “So what?” has not been answered. Students need to indicate why the research
is important. Who would care if the problem is solved?
• The research methods, data analyses, and results are not adequately described.
• Social change implications are inadequate or missing.
• The abstract exceeds one page.
Appendices
The APA style manual addresses appendices and supplemental materials in Section 2.13 (pp. 38–
39) and on pages 229–230. The appendices follow the reference list. They are lettered A, B, C,
and so forth. Figures and tables in the appendices are labeled A1, A2, B1, and so forth, according
to the appendix in which they appear. Note: If there is only one appendix, no letter is given.
A blank divider page is unnecessary between appendices unless it lends to readability or if a
heading cannot be placed on the first page of an appendix. (Typically, this could happen when a
scanned document takes up an entire page.) The materials in the appendix must not extend
beyond the margins of the rest of the dissertation: Reduce the appendix materials as needed.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 35
Definitions of Terms and Glossaries
Many dissertations include a brief listing of key terms that are interpreted and clarified for the
reader’s benefit. In general, students should not define a common term such as teenager (“a
person between 13 and 19 years, inclusive”). They should list only ambiguous, controversial, or
operational terms used throughout the dissertation. Technical terms are usually defined in the
text, if necessary, rather than in a Definitions of Terms section. Definitions must be explicit,
specific, and scholarly, and the source must be cited. More information on defining terms and
further instruction on words used as words is provided below.
When defining a term, students need to determine whether the definition belongs in a list or in
the text. Walden suggests the following three options for defining key terms:
• List key words or phrases in a section called Definition of Terms, in the first chapter.
• List all key terms in a glossary, in an appendix.
• Define more common terms, particularly abbreviations and technical terms with only
immediate application for the reader, upon first usage. (Per APA 4.21, remember to italicize
key terms on first usage.)
Students should consult their committee chair about what is most appropriate for the reader’s
comprehension.
Definition Examples
Note that it is important to give proper credit to the originator of the definition.
The following examples illustrate different approaches to defining terms. The first two examples
might well appear in a section called Definition of Terms.
Dialects: Language varieties that initially and basically represent various
geographic origins (Fishman, 1972, p. 5).
This writer might have chosen an entirely different definition, depending on how the term was
used in the dissertation.
Dialects: Differences between kinds of language that are differences of
vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation (Trudgill, 1974, p. 17).
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 36
The writer might have decided, for purposes of this dissertation, that the reader is best served by
defining the term in the text, as below, rather than in a list of terms in a Definition of Terms
section.
Fishman (1972) used the term dialects to mean “varieties of language that initially
and basically represent divergent geographic origins” (p. 5).
Words Defined and Words Used as Words
To introduce a new, technical, or key term or label or to indicate a word used as a word, students
should set the term in italic type on first reference. After the first reference, Roman type should
be used. This use of italics most often occurs in the context of defining a word, term, or phrase:
The term networking refers to creating relationships and saving contact
information for a specific situation, usually a job search.
Copyrights and Permission to Use
Copyrighting the Dissertation
A statement of copyright ownership to a dissertation is not necessary because, by federal law, a
copyright exists once a work is “fixed in tangible form” (APA 1.15). If students wish to add a
copyright notice, they should place this wording at the bottom of the acknowledgments page, or
if there is no acknowledgments page, on a blank page after the main title page:
© [year] by [author’s name]. All rights reserved.
See Walden’s authorship guidelines for more information.
Permission to Use Copyrighted Material
As discussed in APA 6.10, if copyrighted material is used in the dissertation beyond “fair use,”
students must obtain written permission from the copyright owner to reproduce the material. To
determine if something is within or beyond fair use, consider these four issues:
1. The purpose and character of the use.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 37
4.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted
work.
ProQuest offers guidance to authors to help them avoid copyright infringement. Such mistakes
may include, among other potential problems, the following:
• Long quotations; there is no legal requirement, but authors should avoid long quotes in
nearly all instances.
• Reproduced publications; this includes standard survey instruments or questionnaires and
articles, such as newspaper or magazine articles, included in an appendix.
• Music or lyrics.
• Graphic or pictorial works.
In general, permission to reproduce tables and figures reproduced or modified from published
works not in the public domain must be demonstrated, most often by a copy of a letter of
permission in an appendix (see APA 5.06). Permission to reprint is usually indicated on the first
page of a copyrighted document, following the wording requested by the copyright holder. For
more information, visit the Writing Center website page on tables and figures.
ProQuest also reminds authors that web-based sources are copyrighted just as print materials are.
Beyond plagiarism, students must be careful not to violate copyright laws by reproducing webbased materials without permission.
Note on Copying Test Instruments, Surveys, and Questionnaires
Gaining permission to reproduce a survey instrument for participants in a study is necessary
when such a document is not in the public domain. However, that is not the same as permission
to reproduce it in the dissertation. If the committee asks the student to include a published
copyrighted document in the dissertation itself, specific authorization must be obtained from the
copyright holder. The authorization granting permission to reproduce must be included in an
appendix. For more information on copyright law and graduate research, visit the ProQuest
website.
Crediting Sources
In-Text Citations
APA style uses the author–date citation system. Authors’ names and year of publication are
given within the text or at the end of block quotations. The author name may appear as part of
the narrative text with the year of publication in parentheses, or both the name and year may
appear in parentheses, separated by a comma. These citations are reflections of items in a
reference list placed at the end of the paper and arranged alphabetically by the authors’ last
names and chronologically within lists of works by a single author.
Dissertation Guidebook (June 2018)
Page 38
Students should consult APA Chapter 6 for detailed instructions on how to properly credit
sources. The Walden Writing Center also provides information on APA citation style.
Block Quotations
Quotations of 40 or more words must appear in a free-standing block, indented 0.5 in. from the
left margin (in the same position as a new paragraph). The right margin remains the same as the
rest of the text, with a ragged border. The final punctuation is at the end of the final sentence; no
punctuation follows the citation at the end of the block quotation (APA 6.03). The Walden
Writing Center encourages minimal use of block quotations, as they can break up the narrative
and be distracting. Discussion and analysis should be in the writer’s own words, demonstrating
scholarship.
Note in this example of a block quote that the left margin is indented about five
spaces. There are no quotation marks, although they would be used to quote
words within a block quote, such as the “hyperbolic tendencies” of a speaker.
The right margin is flush with the rest of the manuscript. The first word can be
capitalized even if the original is not. It is double spaced per APA sixth edition.
(Taylor & Fife, 2009, p. 46)
When to Cite Page Numbers
When directly quoting an original source, students should use quotation marks to set off the
quoted text or format it as a block quotation, as described above. Per APA 6.04, Walden strongly
encourages students to provide page numbers when paraphrasing closely. The reader will
appreciate knowing the exact loca...