Common Mistakes in Quantitative Dissertations
Quantitative dissertations often face pushback not because analyses are incorrect, but because analytic choices are poorly aligned or under explained. This post outlines common mistakes in quantitative dissertations and explains how clarity and justification can strengthen committee evaluation.
What Are Dissertation Committees Actually Looking For?
Dissertation committees often feel unpredictable, especially when feedback varies across members. In practice, however, committees are remarkably consistent in what they evaluate. This post explains what committees actually look for and how understanding those expectations can make the dissertation process more navigable.
What Makes Research Methodologically Defensible?
Research is rarely evaluated on whether it follows a single correct path. Instead, it is judged on whether methodological decisions are coherent, justified, and appropriate for the research context. This post explains what makes research methodologically defensible across review settings.
Responding to Methodological Critique Without Redesigning the Study
Methodological critique often feels like a call to start over. In practice, most feedback can be addressed through clearer justification, alignment, and explanation rather than redesigning the study. This post explains how to respond strategically.
Power, Sample Size, and Feasibility in Real-World Research
Power and sample size decisions in real-world research are shaped by feasibility, access, and constraints. This post explains how evaluators assess these decisions and how transparency and alignment support defensible research design.