Critiquing Literature (Research) Articles for a Dissertation

          Boote and Beile (2005) wrote that pre-dissertation students need to learn the skills required for analyzing and synthesizing research in order to successfully assess, synthesize, and improve research.  Such skills also enable students to select a dynamic dissertation topic, and apply the most appropriate methods for collecting and analyzing data.  Boote and Beile (2005) explained that having the abilities to "build on the scholarship and research of those who have come before us" (p. 3) is known as generativity, which gives meaning, integrity, and sophistication to research efforts.           Boote and Beile (2005) provided guidelines for a literature review, which includes providing an overview of the study, demarcation of what the study is and is not, and rationalizes the stated decisions.  Boote and Beile (2005) wrote that a literature review should extend beyond Creswell's guidelines, and "serve a critical role in gatekeeping, policing, and leading to new productive work, rather than merely mirroring research in a field" (p. 7). 

A literature review should contain "standards such as consistency, parsimony, elegance, and fruitfulness" (Boote and Beile, 2005, p. 7).  Eight elements for a successful literature review include "topicality, comprehensiveness, breadth, exclusion, relevance, currency, availability, and authority" (Boote and Beile, 2005, p. 7).  Boote and Beile (2005) also developed a literature review rubric that assesses "coverage, synthesis, methodology, significance, and rhetoric" (p. 8).  Assembling the following toolbox for evaluating research provides a set of questions based upon prior academic experiences, and from leaders in the field.

Lauer (2004) wrote that policymakers read education research, and attempt to make a decision about whether to trust the results and conclusions, policymakers then need to question if the research should be used to influence education policy, and how to implement changes. Because state and/or local factors, including the cost of implementation, influence policy decisions, researchers must be held accountable for the "quality, coherence, applicability and educational significance of the research" reported.  Conducting an appropriate literature review creates the infrastructure to accountability.

Part I: Toolbox for Evaluating Research Articles

Certain components as noted by Lauer (2004) that represent high quality research espouse a few characteristics such as validity, connection to prior research, ethical standards, and peer review.  The skills required for pre-dissertation students when evaluating prior research permit students (and policymakers) to appraise the trustworthiness of the research being reviewed.  Using the Applied Quick Primer (Exhibit A), and answering the following questions aid in achieving a good appraisal of a research article:

‌‌‌1.      Does the research design match the research questions?

2.      Have acceptable technical standards been adopted during data collection and analyses? 

3.      Does the current study cumulatively add to the current knowledge base?

4.      Does the current study's construction arise from prior research studies and conclusions?

5.      Does the current study impart accepted rules for ethical research thus avoiding

         researcher bias?  

6.      Have the articles under review been peer-reviewed?

7.      Are the researcher's findings coherent, e.g., based upon a theory or conceptual framework?

8.      Have the researcher's findings been replicated, and representative of a body of research?

9.      Does the research study have external validity such that the findings of the study apply to the situation of interest?  (Situation of interest includes the setting, participants, program or treatment.)

10.   If a policy or practice is changed or adopted based on the research results, what difference, if any, will it make to education?  (A research study's educational significance is indicated by the effect size of a program or practice.  Additionally, a meta-analysis reflects the average effect size of several studies, and is a more informative tool to determine educational significance.)

11.   Do the researcher's conclusions infer potentially harmful effects?

         The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System (2011) provided useful

guidelines for reviewing literature: 

12.    Does the Problem Statement address whose problem it is?

13.    What are the potential negative consequences if the study is never conducted?

14.    Is there clarity in the Purpose Statement? 

15.    Does the purpose statement flow directly from the problem statement? 

16.    Do the research questions address the study's purpose and problem? 

17.    Is the research method identified? 

18.    Does the research design (e.g., case study, phenomenology, grounded theory, causal-

 comparative, correlational, quasi-experimental, etc.) answer the research questions? 

19.    Are the variables/constructs and/or phenomenon/concept/idea identified? 

20.    Is the study's specific population identified, including an estimate of the number of participants who will serve as the sample, based upon a power analysis (quantitative/mixed  method) or on design conventions (qualitative)? 

21.    Is the geographic location of the study identified?

         Northcentral University (2012) encapsulates the required elements for a dissertation's  literature review:

22.    Is the literature review an orderly, cohesive, and well-sequenced narrative that relates the problem under investigation to a body of scholarly work?

23.    Does the literature review involve a critical appraisal and synthesis of the relevant published research, including critical appraisals of the research design and methods of key studies?

24.    Does the literature review provide a chronological viewpoint about the research topic with the majority of the literature reviewed sourced from scholarly, peer-reviewed work available in the previous five years?

25.    Does the literature review provide a plentiful number of references to enable impartiality to the study's topic, and provide readers with a wide-range of information about the importance and background of the project?

        Trochim (2006) wrote that reviewing literature requires an inquiry regarding validity. 

26.    Has the literature provided measurements that infer valid conclusions or samples that enable valid inferences?  If so, how is validity stated?

         Mesher (n.d.) wrote that "if an argument is found to be invalid, all judgment must be

suspended because, to be acceptable, an argument must be valid" (par. 1):

27.    Does the researcher's argument represent a valid (acceptable) form?  If so, how is it   

supported?  (Evaluate the content of its premises to assess truthfulness—

verified/justified—or falsehood.)

28.    Does the researcher's argument represent an invalid (unacceptable) form? If so, how?

29.    Are the claims verified or justified because they follow these three rules?  Explain.

         --the claims do not conflict with what one knows or understands as true;

         --the claims do not impose a belief or acceptance of unsupported claims conflicting

           with what one knows or understands as true;

--the claims support an appropriate element of proof.

30.    What do I want to learn from reading this article? 

         Little and Parker (2010) provided a host of questions useful for an article review:  

31.    Is the type of research descriptive (what is there or what do we see), comparative (are findings general or comparable to other elements), or analytical (how does it work or what is the mechanism)?

32.    What are the key points of the article?  Example. 

33.    Is there proof such as data supporting the article's conclusions?  Example. 

34.    Is there a superior degree of evidence, and any limitations noted in the research methodology? 

35.    What is important about the researcher's conclusions? 

36.    Does the research follow the steps of the research process in a logical manner?   

37.    Were the participants fully informed about the nature of the research?  

38.    Was the autonomy/confidentiality of the participants guaranteed? 

39.    Were the participants protected from harm? 

40.    Was ethical permission granted for the study? 

41.    Was the data gathering instrument described?  Was the instrument appropriate?  How was it developed?  Were reliability and validity testing undertaken and the results discussed? Was a pilot study undertaken?

42.    If a hypothesis was identified, was it supported? 

43.    Was a recommendation for further research made?

         Guidelines from Coughian, Cronin, & Ryan (2008, p. 739) provided an additional idea for critiquing research relative to the qualitative research manner:

44.    Were credibility, dependability, transferability and goodness discussed? 

         The Methodist Hospital Employee Intranet (2012) presented guidelines for critiquing a literature review for a mixed-methods research project although most guidelines have already been touched upon:

45.    Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole?

References:

 

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2011). The writer's handbook: Learn how to write a review of literature. Retrieved from http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/ReviewofLiterature.html

falseBoote, D.N. & Beile, P. (2005, August/September). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15. Retrieved from ProQuest.

Coughian, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2008). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research. Retrieved from http://lancashirecare.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/step-by-step-guide-to-criti-research-part-1-quantitative-reseawrch.pdf

Coughian, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2008). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: qualitative research. Retrieved from http://lancashirecare.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/2007-step-by-step-guide-to-critiquing-research-part-2-qualitative-research.pdf

Lauer, P.A. (2004). How do I know if the research warrants policy changes? Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/html/educationIssues/Research/primer/researchwarrants.asp 

Lauer, P.A. (2004). Research utility assessment guide. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/html/educationIssues/Research/primer/rubric.pdf

Little, J.W., & Parker, R. (2010). How to read a scientific paper. Retrieved from http://www.biochem.arizona.edu/classes/bioc568/papers.htm#reading

Mesher, D. (n.d.). Mission critical: San Jose University critical thinking web page. Retrieved from http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html  

Methodist Hospital Employee Intranet. (2012). Mixed-methods research critique template. Retrieved from http://methodistintranet.fasthealth.com/docs/mixed_crit_template_school.pdf

Northcentral University. (2012). 2011 Dissertation handbook. Retrieved from http://learners.ncu.edu/ncu_diss/default.aspx?attendance=Y

Best Practices Designing Research Purpose & Questions

Best Practices for Devising a Research Purpose Statement and Questions

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how Research Purpose Statements and Research Questions can be improved using suggestions provided by Creswell (2008), Aveyard (2007), and others. Synthesizing the many sections of a dissertation by novice researchers requires the ability to identify a research problem. Learning "how to properly construct and develop logical argumentation for a problem statement" (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 19) provides the doctoral student with additional skills over time.

Background of Nardone's Dissertation

Nardone (2009) submitted a dissertation entitled "Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs”. The purpose of the study was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs). The respondents represented two unique stakeholder groups for Graduate Schools of Education: GSOE deans and school superintendents" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6).

Research Purpose Statement Revised

Appropriately critiquing a doctoral-level paper requires an understanding of what defines a Research Purpose Statement (RPS). Creswell (2008) provides such a definition by writing that the RPS "advances the overall direction or focus for the study" albeit quantitative and/or qualitative studies, and consists of one or two well formed sentences. The RPS quite often lies within the Statement of the Problem section, and is frequently placed at the Introduction's end.

Nardone's (2009) dissertation stated that the RPS was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (p. 6). Although Nardone's (2009) RPS was stated in two sentences, a more profound problem exists with the beginning of her RPS sentence because she had previously indicated that her paper would address qualitative and quantitative research. To accommodate both types, Creswell (2008) pointed out that a quantitative study's RPS states that "the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship…" (p. 121) while a qualitative RPS states that "the purpose of the study is to explore…" (p. 121).

As noted above, Nardone (2009) only used "explore" to signify her study's intention (quantitative) when she should have used words to reference both qualitative and quantitative. Not adjusting her RPS to accommodate both types is confusing to readers. An improved RPS would address that the purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between, and explore "the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6).

Research Questions Revised

The research questions presented in a dissertation by Nardone (2009) included "three major research questions, and related sub-questions. One objective of the research is to identify, and quantify, the actual role that the reputational survey plays (based on respondents’ scores) in the USNWR GSOE rankings" (p. 8). Consequently, "prior research of the undergraduate rankings indicates that the reputational aspect significantly drives the overall ranking of the institutions" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8).

Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8). Exploring the behaviors and perceptions of the survey respondents—the GSOE deans and school superintendents—is another objective of the research. Nardone (2009) explains that:

Research explores the respondents' perceptions about the GSOE rankings themselves, in terms of what purpose the rankings might serve, and their perceptions about the reputational survey component of these rankings. More specifically, the study aims to understand their level of awareness of the reputational survey, their understanding of their impact on the rankings, their level of responsiveness to the survey, and their methods and approach to responding to the survey. Why do they, or do they not, respond to the survey? Do they personally respond to the survey? Do they consult with other colleagues? An important emphasis of the research will be on exploring the differences in perceptions and behaviors between these two stakeholder groups. These objectives are captured in the second research question. (p. 8).

Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9). Nardone (2009) states:

Finally, this research will explore the concept of reputation with these survey respondents. The literature indicates that reputation is generally conceptualized as either prominence or as perceived quality. This research asks the two stakeholder groups what forms the basis of their rating of institutions when responding to the USNWR survey. Do they consider the quality of the program graduates? Do they consider the quality and production (output) of faculty research? Do they consider the glossy promotional materials that cross their desk? Do they consider the level of sponsored research? Do they consider student selectivity? Do they consider the published rankings themselves? This will explore whether this important ranking category captures reputation as either prominence, or perceived quality. Again, an important emphasis is the examination of the differences between the two stakeholder groups. Thus, the third research question. (p. 9).

Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

This study does not join the active debate over the best indicators or measures of quality, but instead accepts “reputation” as an asset of value for the university and explores the perceptions and behaviors of two stakeholder groups involved in the rating of academic reputation. (p. 9).

After reviewing Nardone's (2009) research questions several times, and comparing the questions against Nardone's (2009) Research Problem Statement, which was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (p. 6), my general impression is that the RPS is not broadly stated enough to encompass all of the research questions. Since one of the goals of the RPS is to be precise, and then suggesting that the RPS is not broad enough, my opinion is that Nardone (2009) is attempting to integrate too many research questions.

To reiterate, the three research questions are: Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8); Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9); and, Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9). As mentioned, my impression is that there is some duplication between Q2 and Q3, and this is because both questions ask, "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ?".

The list of topics Nardone (2009) has chosen to cover in the research questions is overwhelming. The Research Problem Statement revised as previously discussed is to examine the relationship between, and explore "the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6). The associated unrevised research questions are: Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8); Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9); and, Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

After revising the above, the Problem Statement and Research Questions are:
Problem Statement: Explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs). Questions: 1. What is the significance of the reputational survey? 2. How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey. 2. How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation? To provide a revision of the Research Questions so that consistencies and differences are identified (via meta-ethnography and meta-synthesis) (Aveyard, 2007, p. 108) with the Problem Statement, the final suggested revision is: Q1. How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey?

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was two-fold: revising the research purpose statement and revising research questions presented by Nardone's (2009) dissertation entitled, Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs". Coincidentally, the subject of Nardone's (2009) dissertation mirrors one of the dissertation subjects chosen for my doctorate program, which is to research why the ranking of America's institutes of learning continues to fall when compared with global learning institutes. Working on assignments for EDU7002 serves two purposes: submitting the required work for EDU7002 (and other future courses), and assessing literature, which provides excellent opportunities to develop skills in preparing dissertation-level papers in the future.

References

Aveyard, H. (2007). Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. Great Britain, UK: Open University Press. Retrieved from Northcentral University E-brary.

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ellis, T.J., & Levy, Y. (2008). Framework of problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, (11), p. 17. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol11/ISJv11p017-033Ellis486.pdf

Nardone, M.S. (2009). Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs”. Dissertation retrieved from Northcentral University's Library's ProQuest.

Best Practices for Devising a Research Purpose Statement and Questions

Abstract

No more valuable opportunity exists for a doctoral student to increase skill in writing research papers than to review and critique completed dissertations. However, before value can be realized from such critiques, knowledge of the criteria required for a dissertation is essential for a reader. For example, Ellis and Levy (2008) recommended that a carefully developed Research Proposal Statement renders the possibility that a solution could be forthcoming. Inexorably intertwined with the Research Proposal are the Research Questions. "If one wants to solve a [research] problem, one must generally know what the problem is” (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 18). In fact, the Research Proposal “is the axis around which the whole research effort revolves" (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 19). Consequently, learning to precisely state Research Proposals and Research Questions "with unwavering clarity…is the first requirement in the research process” (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 19).

Best Practices for Devising a Research Purpose Statement and Questions

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how Research Purpose Statements and Research Questions can be improved using suggestions provided by Creswell (2008), Aveyard (2007), and others. Synthesizing the many sections of a dissertation by novice researchers requires the ability to identify a research problem. Learning "how to properly construct and develop logical argumentation for a problem statement" (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 19) provides the doctoral student with additional skills over time.

Background of Nardone's Dissertation

Nardone (2009) submitted a dissertation entitled "Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs”. The purpose of the study was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs). The respondents represented two unique stakeholder groups for Graduate Schools of Education: GSOE deans and school superintendents" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6).

Research Purpose Statement Revised

Appropriately critiquing a doctoral-level paper requires an understanding of what defines a Research Purpose Statement (RPS). Creswell (2008) provides such a definition by writing that the RPS "advances the overall direction or focus for the study" albeit quantitative and/or qualitative studies, and consists of one or two well formed sentences. The RPS quite often lies within the Statement of the Problem section, and is frequently placed at the Introduction's end. Nardone's (2009) dissertation stated that the RPS was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (p. 6). Although Nardone's (2009) RPS was stated in two sentences, a more profound problem exists with the beginning of her RPS sentence because she had previously indicated that her paper would address qualitative and quantitative research.

To accommodate both types, Creswell (2008) pointed out that a quantitative study's RPS states that "the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship…" (p. 121) while a qualitative RPS states that "the purpose of the study is to explore…" (p. 121). As noted above, Nardone (2009) only used "explore" to signify her study's intention (quantitative) when she should have used words to reference both qualitative and quantitative. Not adjusting her RPS to accommodate both types is confusing to readers. An improved RPS would address that the purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between, and explore "the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6).

Research Questions Revised

The research questions presented in a dissertation by Nardone (2009) included "three major research questions, and related sub-questions. One objective of the research is to identify, and quantify, the actual role that the reputational survey plays (based on respondents’ scores) in the USNWR GSOE rankings" (p. 8). Consequently, "prior research of the undergraduate rankings indicates that the reputational aspect significantly drives the overall ranking of the institutions" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8).

Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8).

Exploring the behaviors and perceptions of the survey respondents—the GSOE deans and school superintendents—is another objective of the research. Nardone (2009) explains that:

Research explores the respondents' perceptions about the GSOE
rankings themselves, in terms of what purpose the rankings might serve,
and their perceptions about the reputational survey component of
these rankings. More specifically, the study aims to understand
their level of awareness of the reputational survey, their understanding
of their impact on the rankings, their level of responsiveness to the
survey, and their methods and approach to responding to the survey.
Why do they, or do they not, respond to the survey? Do they personally
respond to the survey? Do they consult with other colleagues? An
important emphasis of the research will be on exploring the differences
in perceptions and behaviors between these two stakeho lder groups.
These objectives are captured in the second research question. (p. 8).

Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

Nardone (2009) states:

Finally, this research will explore the concept of reputation with
these survey respondents. The literature indicates that reputation is
generally conceptualized as either prominence or as perceived quality.
This research asks the two stakeholder groups what forms the basis of
their rating of institutions when responding to the USNWR survey. Do
they consider the quality of the program graduates? Do they consider
the quality and production (output) of faculty research? Do they consider
the glossy promotional materials that cross their desk? Do they consider
the level of sponsored research? Do they consider student selectivity?
Do they consider the published rankings themselves? This will
explore whether this important ranking category captures reputation as
either prominence, or perceived quality. Again, an important emphasis is
the examination of the differences between the two stakeholder groups.
Thus, the third research question. (p. 9).

Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

This study does not join the active debate over the best indicators or
measures of quality, but instead accepts “reputation” as an asset of
value for the university and explores the perceptions and behaviors
of two stakeholder groups involved in the rating of academic
reputation. (p. 9).

After reviewing Nardone's (2009) research questions several times, and comparing the questions against Nardone's (2009) Research Problem Statement, which was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (p. 6), my general impression is that the RPS is not broadly stated enough to encompass all of the research questions. Since one of the goals of the RPS is to be precise, and then suggesting that the RPS is not broad enough, my opinion is that Nardone (2009) is attempting to integrate too many research questions.

To reiterate, the three research questions are: Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8); Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9); and, Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

As mentioned, my impression is that there is some duplication between Q2 and Q3, and this is because both questions ask, "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ?". The list of topics Nardone (2009) has chosen to cover in the research questions is overwhelming. The Research Problem Statement revised as previously discussed is to examine the relationship between, and explore "the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6).

The associated unrevised research questions are: Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8); Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9); and, Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

After revising the above, the Problem Statement and Research Questions are:
Problem Statement: Explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs). Questions: 1. What is the significance of the reputational survey? 2. How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey. 3. How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation?

To provide a revision of the Research Questions so that consistencies and differences are identified (via meta-ethnography and meta-synthesis) (Aveyard, 2007, p. 108) with the Problem Statement, the final suggested revision is:

Q1. How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their
perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey?

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was two-fold: revising the research purpose statement and revising research questions presented by Nardone's (2009) dissertation entitled, "Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs". Coincidentally, the subject of Nardone's (2009)dissertation mirrors one of the dissertation subjects chosen for my doctorate program, which is to research why the ranking of America's institutes of learning continues to fall when compared with global learning institutes. Working on assignments for EDU7002 serves two purposes: submitting the required work for EDU7002 (and other future courses), and assessing literature, which provides excellent opportunities to develop skills in preparing dissertation-level papers in the future.


References

Aveyard, H. (2007). Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. Great Britain, UK: Open University Press. Retrieved from Northcentral University E-brary.

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ellis, T.J., & Levy, Y. (2008). Framework of problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, (11), p. 17. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol11/ISJv11p017-033Ellis486.pdf

Nardone, M.S. (2009). Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs”. Dissertation retrieved from Northcentral University's Library's ProQuest.