Interesting questions.

I am, for the moment, speaking for myself and not either of the 
institutions for
which I am currently teaching in an adjunct role.

On theoretical framework: It depends. For those of you who took psych 101
somewhere along the line think of Maslow's triangle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs Research in any
field, I think, has a similar structure. At the bottom the field is
establishing basic facts and agreed upon terminology. The next level up is
telling the story and filling in the gaps. At another level or two we start
building theoretical constructs to explain the phenomenon at hand, and at the
very top we engage in experimental research and theory testing. Clearly the
terminology and structure I have outlined here is a rough take and could be
considerably refined.

So, back to the "It depends." If the question driving the dissertation is in a
field, or area within a field, sufficiently advanced to have a theoretical
framework, then clearly one should be present in the investigation. On the
other hand there are areas where we are still establishing some of the basic
facts, or telling the story, where a theoretical construct may not yet be
appropriate.

This is kind of a "let the punishment fit the crime" situation. Without seeing
the wording of the particular institution Ken mentions, I'd not be inclined to
make a final judgment on the requirement- or lack thereof.

On the "no research prior to 2006" issue: I am more than a little boggled by
this one. I simply cannot imagine the reasoning here unless it was 
promogulated
by one those fools who believes that "everything is on the web." Since I
regularly commune with Louis Round Wilson's 1938 Geography of Reading, 
and keep
Frederick Jackson Turner's 1893 frontier thesis in mind, having the 
curtain drop
at 2006 makes no sense. It *may* make sense in some field like plasma physics,
or one of those fast moving hard science fields, but for anything resembling a
social science or humanities field the policy is simply ludicrous.

Just sayin'

Charley Seavey
The Professor
Ranganathan said it all!


Quoting "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Two incidents in the past month lead me to raise a question on this 
> list about doctoral studies. I want to be very careful to frame the 
> question so that it is clear that I am seeking to understand 
> expectations not to criticize them.
> At a recent doctoral student presentation the candidate was asked 
> about the theoretical framework for the study. The response was that 
> the institution did not require a theoretical framework (for some of 
> us this is a distinguishing feature between master's and doctoral 
> work). Is this the case at your institution? Is this a change?
> Today a doctoral student from another institution asked me about 
> recent research in a specific area. The institution "requires that I 
> use research no further back than the year 2006." (I will set aside 
> whether there is any relationship between the topic of study and the 
> date prescription.) Again, is this the case at your institution? Is 
> this a change?
> I have not encountered these before and wonder if there are changes 
> underway or I am less aware of expectations elsewhere or whether 
> these are unique.
> Thank you.
> [cid:3384940994_50458785]
> Ken Haycock
> voice: 778-689-5938