{
  "skill": "alterlab-thesis-supervisor",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": "ts-methodology-chapter",
      "prompt": "My doctoral student is drafting Chapter 3 of her dissertation. Can you help structure the methodology chapter so it covers research design, sampling, instrumentation, and trustworthiness in enough detail to be replicable?",
      "expected_output": "Invokes alterlab-thesis-supervisor: walks through the Chapter 3 methodology template (design and rationale, population/sample, instrumentation, data collection, analysis per RQ, trustworthiness/validity, ethics, limitations) with replication-level detail.",
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "should_trigger",
          "value": true
        },
        {
          "type": "behavior",
          "value": "Structures Chapter 3 section by section (research design and rationale, population/sample with sampling justification, instrumentation, data collection procedures, data analysis specified per research question, a trustworthiness or validity/reliability section, ethics, and limitations), at a level of detail another researcher could replicate."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ts-viva-defense-prep",
      "prompt": "I defend my dissertation in five weeks. Help me prepare for the viva — what questions should I anticipate and how should I structure my preparation?",
      "expected_output": "Invokes alterlab-thesis-supervisor: provides the multi-week viva voce preparation protocol, anticipates common defense questions by category (opening, theoretical, methodology, findings, broader, closing), and recommends a mock defense.",
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "should_trigger",
          "value": true
        },
        {
          "type": "behavior",
          "value": "Lays out a week-by-week viva preparation plan, anticipates likely questions grouped by category (such as opening, theoretical, methodology, findings, and broader/implications), and explicitly recommends a mock viva/defense as practice."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ts-thesis-timeline",
      "prompt": "Can you build a realistic timeline and milestone tracker for my master's thesis, from topic approval through the final defense and submission to the graduate school?",
      "expected_output": "Invokes alterlab-thesis-supervisor: produces a master's thesis timeline with phased milestones and the thesis milestone tracker table (target/actual dates, status), including buffer time for delays.",
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "should_trigger",
          "value": true
        },
        {
          "type": "behavior",
          "value": "Produces a phased master's-thesis schedule from topic approval through final defense and graduate-school submission, rendered as a milestone tracker with target/actual date and status columns, and explicitly builds in buffer/contingency time rather than a back-to-back plan."
        },
        {
          "type": "output_contains",
          "value": "Milestone"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ts-supervision-feedback",
      "prompt": "One of my advisees keeps missing deadlines and the latest first draft is very rough. How should I give feedback at this stage and handle the conversation about lack of progress?",
      "expected_output": "Invokes alterlab-thesis-supervisor: applies stage-appropriate feedback strategy (first draft = argument/structure, not line-editing), uses the difficult-supervision-conversation approach for stalled progress, and references the supervisory meeting structure.",
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "should_trigger",
          "value": true
        },
        {
          "type": "behavior",
          "value": "Matches feedback to draft maturity — for a rough first draft it targets argument, structure, and gaps rather than line-editing/copy-editing — and handles the missed-deadlines conversation with an inquiring, non-accusatory approach that surfaces obstacles instead of just demanding output."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ts-proposal-structure",
      "prompt": "I'm writing my dissertation proposal and I'm stuck on the problem statement and research questions in Chapter 1. Can you help me frame them so my committee approves the proposal?",
      "expected_output": "Invokes alterlab-thesis-supervisor: guides the Chapter 1 introduction sections, applies the problem-statement formula and purpose/RQ alignment, and references proposal defense examiner expectations.",
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "should_trigger",
          "value": true
        },
        {
          "type": "behavior",
          "value": "Frames the problem statement around a gap supported by evidence (despite what is known / what remains unclear / why it matters), then derives research questions that align one-to-one with the purpose statement, rather than offering generic 'write clearly' advice."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ts-not-journal-article",
      "prompt": "Help me turn my completed dissertation into a journal article — draft the IMRaD manuscript and format the references in IEEE for submission.",
      "expected_output": "defers to alterlab-paper-writer / does not invoke this skill",
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "should_not_trigger",
          "value": true
        },
        {
          "type": "output_contains",
          "value": "alterlab-paper-writer"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ts-not-literature-search",
      "prompt": "I need a systematic literature search strategy with PRISMA screening to find all studies on AI in virtual production for my thesis lit review.",
      "expected_output": "defers to alterlab-deep-research / does not invoke this skill",
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "should_not_trigger",
          "value": true
        },
        {
          "type": "output_contains",
          "value": "alterlab-deep-research"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ts-not-course-design",
      "prompt": "I'm running a thesis-writing seminar for incoming grad students — help me design the course with learning outcomes, a rubric for their seminar deliverables, and a weekly lesson plan.",
      "expected_output": "defers to alterlab-teaching-design / does not invoke this skill (course/curriculum design, not supervising an individual thesis)",
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "should_not_trigger",
          "value": true
        },
        {
          "type": "output_contains",
          "value": "alterlab-teaching-design"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}

# Chapter-by-Chapter Writing Guides

Detailed, section-by-section writing templates, quality checklists, and common-mistake tables for each chapter of a thesis or dissertation (Chapters 1 through 5).

#### Chapter 1: Introduction

**Purpose:** Establish the problem, justify the study, and frame the research questions.

**Section-by-Section Guide:**

```markdown
## Background and Context (1-3 pages)
- Start broad: What is the general area of concern?
- Narrow progressively: What specific aspect will you study?
- Use recent (last 5-10 years) citations to establish currency
- Establish that this is a real-world problem, not just an academic curiosity

## Problem Statement (1-2 paragraphs — the most critical paragraph in the dissertation)
The problem statement must:
- Identify a gap, conflict, or need in the literature or practice
- Be supported by evidence (citations to studies showing the gap)
- Be specific enough to study but significant enough to matter
- Connect logically to the research questions

FORMULA: "Despite [what we know], [what we don't know] remains unclear.
This gap is problematic because [consequences]. Therefore, this study
investigates [specific focus]."

## Purpose Statement (1 paragraph)
"The purpose of this [qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods] study is to
[verb: explore, examine, compare, describe] [what] among [whom] at [where]."

## Research Questions (bulleted list)
- Number them (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3)
- Align each with a specific method of analysis
- Quantitative: Include hypotheses (H1a, H1b, etc.)
- Qualitative: Open-ended, exploratory questions

## Significance of the Study (1-2 pages)
Three levels of significance:
1. Theoretical: How does this advance theory?
2. Practical: How does this help practitioners?
3. Methodological: Does this introduce a new approach?

## Scope and Delimitations
- Delimitations: Boundaries you chose (population, time frame, location)
- Do NOT confuse with limitations (weaknesses you acknowledge)

## Definition of Key Terms
- Define all technical terms, abbreviations, and concepts used in RQs
- Use operational definitions (how measured in YOUR study), not just dictionary definitions
```

**Common Chapter 1 Mistakes:**

| Mistake | Fix |
|---------|-----|
| Problem statement is too broad | Narrow to a specific, researchable gap with citations |
| Purpose statement does not match RQs | Ensure 1:1 alignment between purpose, RQs, and methods |
| Too much literature in Chapter 1 | Save detailed review for Chapter 2; Chapter 1 is a preview |
| Research questions are yes/no | Rewrite as open-ended (how, what, to what extent) |
| Missing significance | Articulate who cares and why — reviewers always check |

#### Chapter 2: Literature Review

**Purpose:** Situate your study within existing knowledge, identify gaps, and establish a theoretical framework.

**Literature Review Architecture:**

```
THEORETICAL/CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
│   Present the theory or model that frames your study
│   Explain key constructs and relationships
│   Justify why this framework is appropriate
│   Show how your RQs map onto the framework
│
THEMATIC REVIEW
│
├── Theme 1: [Major topic related to your study]
│   ├── Subtheme 1a
│   ├── Subtheme 1b
│   └── Summary and connection to your study
│
├── Theme 2: [Major topic related to your study]
│   ├── Subtheme 2a
│   ├── Subtheme 2b
│   └── Summary and connection to your study
│
├── Theme 3: [Major topic related to your study]
│   ├── Subtheme 3a
│   ├── Subtheme 3b
│   └── Summary and connection to your study
│
GAP ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS
    Synthesize across themes
    Identify what is known, what is contested, what is unknown
    Connect the gap directly to your research questions
    "This study addresses this gap by..."
```

**Literature Review Quality Checklist:**

```markdown
## Quality Indicators

### Coverage
- [ ] Includes seminal works in the field
- [ ] Includes recent studies (last 5 years)
- [ ] Covers international perspectives (if relevant)
- [ ] Addresses conflicting findings

### Synthesis (not just summary)
- [ ] Groups studies by theme, not by author
- [ ] Compares and contrasts findings across studies
- [ ] Identifies patterns, contradictions, and gaps
- [ ] Critically evaluates methodological quality

### Organization
- [ ] Clear logical structure with transitions
- [ ] Each section builds toward the research questions
- [ ] Theoretical framework is well-integrated
- [ ] Chapter ends with a clear justification for the study

### Writing
- [ ] Uses reporting verbs appropriately (found, argued, demonstrated, claimed)
- [ ] Balances direct quotes with paraphrasing (prefer paraphrasing)
- [ ] Maintains the student's analytical voice (not just reporting others)
- [ ] Follows citation style consistently
```

#### Chapter 3: Methodology

**Purpose:** Describe your research design in sufficient detail that another researcher could replicate the study.

**Methodology Chapter Template:**

```markdown
## Research Design and Rationale
- Name and justify your approach (experimental, quasi-experimental,
  correlational, case study, phenomenological, etc.)
- Explain why this design answers your RQs
- Cite methodological authorities

## Setting and Context
- Describe the research site(s)
- Why this setting is appropriate

## Population and Sample
- Define the target population
- Describe sampling strategy and justify it
- Sample size: justify with power analysis (quantitative) or
  saturation rationale (qualitative)
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria

## Instrumentation
- For each instrument:
  - Name, author, year
  - What it measures
  - Number of items, response format, subscales
  - Published reliability (Cronbach's alpha)
  - Published validity evidence
  - Permission to use (if proprietary)
  - Any modifications you made (and why)
- For researcher-developed instruments:
  - Development process
  - Content validity evidence (expert review)
  - Pilot test results

## Data Collection Procedures
- Step-by-step chronological description
- IRB approval (protocol number)
- Informed consent process
- Timeline of data collection
- How data were recorded and stored

## Data Analysis
- For EACH research question:
  - RQ#: [Question text]
  - Analysis method: [Name]
  - Software: [Name and version]
  - Assumptions tested: [List]
  - Decision criteria: [Alpha level, effect size thresholds]
- For qualitative:
  - Coding approach (with citation: Braun & Clarke, Strauss & Corbin, etc.)
  - Phases of analysis
  - Software (NVivo, Atlas.ti, or manual)

## Trustworthiness / Validity and Reliability
- Quantitative: Internal validity threats and controls; external validity;
  reliability measures
- Qualitative: Credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability
  (Lincoln & Guba); specific strategies used

## Ethical Considerations
- IRB approval details
- Informed consent
- Confidentiality/anonymity measures
- Data storage and destruction plan
- Researcher positionality (qualitative)

## Limitations
- Methodological limitations you acknowledge from the outset
- How you mitigate each limitation
```

#### Chapter 4: Results/Findings

**Purpose:** Present findings objectively, organized by research question.

**Results Chapter Structure:**

```markdown
## Data Preparation
- Response rate and dropout analysis
- Data screening (missing data, outliers, assumptions)
- Reliability of instruments with YOUR sample

## Participant Description
- Demographics table
- Comparison to target population (representativeness)

## Results by Research Question

### RQ1: [Question text]
[Analysis results — statistical tests, themes, or other findings]
[Tables and figures]
[Brief factual interpretation — what the data show, not what it means]

### RQ2: [Question text]
[Same structure]

### RQ3: [Question text]
[Same structure]

## Summary of Findings
- Brief recapitulation (no interpretation yet — save for Chapter 5)
- Table summarizing findings by RQ
```

**Results Presentation Guidelines:**

| Quantitative | Qualitative |
|-------------|------------|
| Report test statistic, df, p-value, effect size | Present themes with supporting quotes |
| Use tables for complex results | Use tables for theme summaries |
| Use figures for visual patterns | Use figures for thematic maps |
| Report exact p-values (not just p < .05) | Indicate how many participants endorsed each theme |
| Report confidence intervals where appropriate | Present disconfirming evidence |
| Follow APA tables/figures formatting | Use participant pseudonyms consistently |

#### Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions

**Purpose:** Interpret findings, connect to literature, and articulate contributions.

**Discussion Chapter Framework:**

```markdown
## Summary of the Study
- Brief recap: problem, purpose, method, key findings (1-2 pages)

## Discussion of Findings

### Finding 1: [Key finding related to RQ1]
- How does this finding relate to existing literature?
  - Consistent with: [Studies that found similar results — explain why]
  - Inconsistent with: [Studies that found different results — explain why]
- How does this finding relate to the theoretical framework?
- What might explain this finding?

### Finding 2: [Key finding related to RQ2]
[Same structure]

### Finding 3: [Key finding related to RQ3]
[Same structure]

## Implications

### Theoretical Implications
- How does this study advance theory?
- What modifications to existing theory do the findings suggest?

### Practical Implications
- What should practitioners do differently based on these findings?
- How can organizations, policymakers, or educators use these results?

### Methodological Implications (if applicable)
- What did this study contribute to research methods in the field?

## Limitations
- Be honest and specific
- Distinguish between limitations (weaknesses beyond your control) and
  delimitations (boundaries you chose)
- For each limitation, explain how it might affect interpretation

## Recommendations for Future Research
- Directly tied to your findings and limitations
- Specific and actionable (not "more research is needed")
- Example: "Future studies should examine this phenomenon in [different
  context/population] to test the transferability of these findings."

## Conclusion
- The final 1-2 paragraphs
- Restate the significance of the study
- End with the enduring takeaway — what should the reader remember?
```

# Defense Preparation

Detailed checklists, presentation plans, and categorized question banks for the proposal defense and the final defense (viva voce).

#### Proposal Defense

**What Examiners Expect:**

```markdown
## Proposal Defense Checklist

### The Document
- [ ] Clear, researchable problem statement with evidence
- [ ] Research questions that are answerable with the proposed methods
- [ ] Comprehensive literature review that justifies the study
- [ ] Methodology that is detailed, appropriate, and feasible
- [ ] Realistic timeline and ethical approval plan

### The Presentation (15-20 minutes typically)
- [ ] Slide 1: Title, your name, committee members, date
- [ ] Slides 2-3: Background and problem statement
- [ ] Slide 4: Purpose and research questions
- [ ] Slide 5-6: Theoretical framework
- [ ] Slides 7-9: Key literature and gap
- [ ] Slides 10-13: Methodology (design, sample, data collection, analysis)
- [ ] Slide 14: Timeline
- [ ] Slide 15: Expected contributions
- [ ] Slide 16: References (selected)

### Common Proposal Defense Questions
1. "Why is this study needed? Who cares?"
2. "How does your theoretical framework inform your research questions?"
3. "Why did you choose [method] over [alternative]?"
4. "How will you ensure trustworthiness/validity?"
5. "What will you do if you cannot recruit enough participants?"
6. "What are the limitations of this design?"
7. "How does this contribute to the field?"
8. "What is your timeline, and is it realistic?"
```

#### Final Defense (Viva Voce)

**Preparation Protocol:**

```markdown
## Viva Voce Preparation (4-6 weeks before)

### Week 1-2: Re-Read and Reflect
- [ ] Re-read the entire dissertation critically
- [ ] Note any weaknesses you would challenge as a reviewer
- [ ] Prepare a 1-page summary of key contributions
- [ ] Identify the 3-5 most important findings

### Week 3: Anticipate Questions
- [ ] Prepare answers for common viva questions (see below)
- [ ] Prepare answers for discipline-specific methodological challenges
- [ ] Know your data inside out — expect questions about specific numbers/quotes
- [ ] Prepare a response for "What would you do differently?"

### Week 4: Practice
- [ ] Mock viva with supervisor (or peers)
- [ ] Practice explaining your study to a non-specialist in 5 minutes
- [ ] Practice answering "What is the main contribution?" in 2 sentences
- [ ] Time your presentation (if one is required)

### Week 5-6: Polish and Rest
- [ ] Prepare any visual aids
- [ ] Check all page references, table numbers, citation accuracy
- [ ] Prepare a printed copy with tabs for quick reference
- [ ] Get adequate rest the night before
```

**Common Viva Questions by Category:**

```markdown
## Opening Questions
- "Can you summarize your thesis in 5 minutes?"
- "What motivated you to study this topic?"
- "What is the main argument/contribution of your thesis?"

## Theoretical Questions
- "Why did you choose [framework]? What alternatives did you consider?"
- "How does [theory] inform your interpretation of the findings?"
- "Where does your work fit in the broader theoretical landscape?"

## Methodology Questions
- "Justify your choice of [qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods]."
- "How did you address [specific validity threat]?"
- "If you could redesign the study, what would you change?"
- "How do you respond to the limitation of [specific limitation]?"

## Findings Questions
- "Which finding surprised you the most? Why?"
- "How do you explain the discrepancy between your finding and [prior study]?"
- "What is the practical significance of [specific finding]?"

## Broader Questions
- "What are the implications for policy/practice?"
- "What would you recommend for future research?"
- "How would you turn this into journal publications?"
- "Where do you see this research going in the next 5 years?"

## Closing Questions
- "Is there anything you wish you had included?"
- "What would you tell a student beginning a similar project?"
- "What has this process taught you as a researcher?"
```

# Formatting Guides

Style-by-style dissertation formatting checklists for APA 7 and Chicago/Turabian.

**APA 7 Dissertation Formatting Essentials:**

```markdown
## APA 7 Formatting Checklist

### Page Layout
- [ ] 1-inch margins on all sides
- [ ] 12-point Times New Roman, 11-point Calibri, or 11-point Arial
- [ ] Double-spaced throughout (including references)
- [ ] Page numbers: Top right, starting from title page
- [ ] Running head: NOT required in student papers (APA 7 change)

### Headings (5 levels)
Level 1: Centered, Bold, Title Case
Level 2: Left-aligned, Bold, Title Case
Level 3: Left-aligned, Bold Italic, Title Case
Level 4: Indented, Bold, Title Case, Ending With a Period.
Level 5: Indented, Bold Italic, Title Case, Ending With a Period.

### Tables
- [ ] Table number (bold): Table 1
- [ ] Title (italic, title case): below table number
- [ ] Body: Single or 1.5-spaced within; horizontal lines for header and bottom only
- [ ] Note: Below table; General note, specific notes, probability notes

### Figures
- [ ] Figure number (bold): Figure 1
- [ ] Title (italic, title case): below figure number
- [ ] Legend within figure
- [ ] Note: Below figure

### Citations
- 1-2 authors: Always cite both names (Smith & Jones, 2024)
- 3+ authors: First author et al. (Smith et al., 2024) from first citation
- Direct quotes: Author, year, page number (Smith, 2024, p. 15)
- Block quotes: 40+ words, indented 0.5", no quotation marks

### Reference List
- Hanging indent (0.5")
- Alphabetical by first author's last name
- Include DOIs as https://doi.org/xxxxx
- Italicize journal names and volume numbers
```

**Chicago/Turabian Dissertation Formatting:**

```markdown
## Chicago/Turabian Key Differences from APA

### Citations: Two Systems
1. Notes-Bibliography (humanities): Footnotes/endnotes + bibliography
2. Author-Date (sciences): Parenthetical citations + reference list

### Notes-Bibliography Example (Chicago 18th ed., 2024)
First citation (footnote):
  1. Jane Smith, Title of Book (Publisher, 2024), 45.

Subsequent citations:
  2. Smith, Title of Book, 50.
  (or: Smith, 50. — if no ambiguity)

Bibliography entry:
  Smith, Jane. Title of Book. Publisher, 2024.

The 18th edition (September 2024) no longer requires the place of publication
for books. Turabian's 9th edition (2018) still follows the 17th — if the
graduate school mandates Turabian 9th, keep "Place: Publisher".

### Formatting
- Margins: 1 inch (some universities require 1.5" left for binding)
- Font: Same as APA recommendations
- Spacing: Double-spaced text; single-spaced block quotes and footnotes
- Block quotes: 100+ words (Chicago) or 5+ lines; indented 0.5"
- Chapter titles: Begin on new page, 2 inches from top
```

# Thesis & Dissertation Guidelines Reference

## 1. Dissertation Proposal — Detailed Expectations

### What Committees Look For in a Proposal

| Criterion | Excellent | Acceptable | Needs Work |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|------------|
| Problem statement | Clear, evidence-based gap; significant to field | Identifiable gap but weak evidence | Vague, no clear gap, or trivial problem |
| Research questions | Specific, answerable, aligned to methods | Clear but could be sharper | Vague, yes/no, or too many |
| Literature review | Comprehensive, synthesized, identifies specific gap | Adequate coverage but more summary than synthesis | Laundry list of studies; no synthesis |
| Theoretical framework | Well-articulated, appropriate, visually mapped | Present but not deeply integrated | Missing or superficially applied |
| Methodology | Detailed, justified, replicable | Adequate but missing some details | Vague, inappropriate, or unjustified |
| Feasibility | Realistic timeline, accessible population, obtainable data | Feasible with some concerns | Unrealistic scope, timeline, or access |
| Writing quality | Clear, concise, professional academic prose | Generally clear with some rough areas | Unclear, verbose, or unprofessional |

### Proposal Defense Outcomes

| Outcome | Meaning | Next Steps |
|---------|---------|------------|
| Pass without revisions | Rare. Proposal is ready as-is. | Proceed to IRB and data collection |
| Pass with minor revisions | Most common. Small changes needed. | Make revisions; advisor approves; no re-defense |
| Pass with major revisions | Significant changes required. | Make revisions; committee reviews; may or may not re-defend |
| Revise and resubmit | Proposal is not ready. | Major rewriting required; must re-defend |
| Fail | Very rare. Fundamental problems. | May need to change topic, advisor, or reconsider program |

---

## 2. Literature Review Strategies

### Search Strategy Documentation

```markdown
## Systematic Literature Search Strategy

### Databases Searched
1. [Database name] — Date searched: [Date]
2. [Database name] — Date searched: [Date]
3. [Database name] — Date searched: [Date]

### Search Terms

| Concept | Search Terms | Boolean |
|---------|-------------|---------|
| Concept 1 | "term A" OR "term B" OR "synonym C" | OR within concept |
| Concept 2 | "term D" OR "term E" OR "synonym F" | OR within concept |
| Concept 3 | "term G" OR "term H" | OR within concept |
| Combined | Concept 1 AND Concept 2 AND Concept 3 | AND across concepts |

### Inclusion Criteria
- Published between [Year] and [Year]
- Peer-reviewed journals
- English language (or specify others)
- [Other criteria relevant to your review]

### Exclusion Criteria
- Conference abstracts only (no full text)
- [Other criteria]

### Search Results

| Database | Initial Hits | After Dedup | After Title/Abstract Screen | After Full-Text Screen | Included |
|----------|-------------|-------------|---------------------------|----------------------|----------|
| PubMed | 342 | 298 | 87 | 42 | 38 |
| PsycINFO | 215 | 156 | 45 | 28 | 25 |
| ERIC | 178 | 134 | 38 | 18 | 15 |
| **Total** | **735** | **588** | **170** | **88** | **78** |

### Additional Sources
- Backward citation searching (reference lists of included studies): [N] additional
- Forward citation searching (Google Scholar "cited by"): [N] additional
- Expert recommendations: [N] additional
```

### Synthesis Matrix

```markdown
## Synthesis Matrix

| Source | Year | Method | Sample | Key Findings | Theme 1 | Theme 2 | Theme 3 | Quality |
|--------|------|--------|--------|-------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Smith | 2022 | Quantitative (survey) | 450 faculty | Positive correlation between X and Y | X | | X | High |
| Jones | 2021 | Qualitative (interviews) | 15 faculty | Three themes emerged: A, B, C | X | X | | Medium |
| Lee | 2023 | Mixed methods | 200 + 20 | Quantitative confirmed; qualitative nuanced | X | X | X | High |
| Brown | 2020 | Meta-analysis | 35 studies | Overall effect size d = 0.45 | | X | | High |
```

### Writing the Literature Review — Paragraph Structure

Each paragraph in a literature review should follow this structure:

```
Topic sentence:     State the point this paragraph will make
Evidence:           Cite 2-4 studies that support, challenge, or nuance the point
Synthesis:          Compare/contrast findings across studies
Connection:         Link to your study's research questions or framework
Transition:         Bridge to the next paragraph
```

Example:

```
Several studies have examined the relationship between mentoring quality
and doctoral completion rates (Topic). Smith (2022) found that students
who met weekly with their advisor were 2.3 times more likely to complete
within six years, while Jones (2021) reported that meeting frequency
mattered less than the perceived quality of feedback (Evidence). Together,
these findings suggest that it is not merely access to a supervisor but
the nature of the interaction that predicts success (Synthesis). This
aligns with the present study's focus on supervisory practices rather
than structural factors (Connection). However, the role of peer support
networks, which may moderate the advisor-student relationship, has
received less attention (Transition to next paragraph).
```

---

## 3. Data Analysis Decision Trees

### Quantitative Analysis Selection

```
What is your research question type?
│
├── DIFFERENCE between groups
│   ├── How many groups?
│   │   ├── 2 groups
│   │   │   ├── Independent? → Independent samples t-test
│   │   │   └── Related/paired? → Paired samples t-test
│   │   └── 3+ groups
│   │       ├── Independent? → One-way ANOVA
│   │       │   └── Significant? → Post-hoc tests (Tukey, Bonferroni)
│   │       └── Related? → Repeated measures ANOVA
│   ├── Need to control covariates? → ANCOVA
│   └── Multiple DVs? → MANOVA
│
├── RELATIONSHIP between variables
│   ├── Two continuous variables → Pearson or Spearman correlation
│   ├── Predicting a continuous DV
│   │   ├── One predictor → Simple linear regression
│   │   └── Multiple predictors → Multiple regression
│   │       ├── All entered together → Simultaneous
│   │       ├── Theory-driven order → Hierarchical
│   │       └── Data-driven → Stepwise (use cautiously)
│   └── Predicting a categorical DV → Logistic regression
│
├── STRUCTURE in data
│   ├── Reduce variables → Factor analysis (EFA/CFA)
│   ├── Group cases → Cluster analysis
│   └── Nested data (students in classrooms) → Multilevel modeling (HLM)
│
└── Non-parametric alternatives (when assumptions violated)
    ├── t-test → Mann-Whitney U (independent) / Wilcoxon (paired)
    ├── ANOVA → Kruskal-Wallis
    ├── Correlation → Spearman's rho
    └── Chi-square → Fisher's exact test (small samples)
```

### Qualitative Analysis Selection

```
What is your analytical goal?
│
├── Identify patterns/themes across dataset
│   └── Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke)
│
├── Generate theory from data
│   └── Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin; Charmaz)
│
├── Understand lived experience in depth
│   └── IPA (Smith et al.) or Phenomenology (Moustakas)
│
├── Describe cultural patterns
│   └── Ethnographic analysis
│
├── Understand experience through stories
│   └── Narrative analysis
│
├── Categorize manifest content systematically
│   └── Content analysis
│
└── Analyze in-depth bounded system
    └── Case study analysis (Yin)
```

---

## 4. Committee Management

### Selecting Committee Members

| Consideration | Questions to Ask |
|--------------|-----------------|
| Expertise | Does this person have knowledge relevant to my topic, theory, or methods? |
| Availability | Will they be available for the duration of my study? (Sabbatical? Retirement?) |
| Compatibility | Do their supervision style and expectations align with mine and my advisor's? |
| Track record | Do their students finish? On time? Do they attend meetings and provide timely feedback? |
| Strategic value | Can they open doors to networks, publications, or positions? |
| Balance | Does the committee as a whole cover all my needs (content, methods, theory)? |

### Committee Communication Protocol

```markdown
## Committee Communication Guide

### Regular Updates (quarterly or per milestone)
- Brief email to full committee
- 1-2 paragraphs: progress, next steps, timeline status
- Attach any relevant documents

### Before Committee Meetings
- Send agenda + documents 2 weeks in advance
- Confirm date/time 1 month in advance
- Book room/set up video link

### After Committee Meetings
- Send summary of decisions and action items within 1 week
- Note any disagreements among committee members and how they were resolved
- Update timeline based on committee input

### Managing Conflicting Feedback
1. Identify the specific disagreement
2. Discuss with your advisor first
3. If unresolved, request a committee meeting to discuss
4. Document the resolution and the rationale
5. In the dissertation, acknowledge the tension if it represents
   a genuine debate in the field
```

---

## 5. Formatting Quick Reference

### Front Matter Order (typical)

```
1. Title page
2. Copyright page (optional)
3. Approval/signature page
4. Abstract
5. Dedication (optional)
6. Acknowledgments
7. Table of contents
8. List of tables
9. List of figures
10. List of abbreviations (if needed)
```

### Back Matter Order (typical)

```
1. References / Bibliography
2. Appendices
   A. IRB approval letter
   B. Informed consent form
   C. Survey instrument / interview protocol
   D. Codebook (qualitative)
   E. Additional tables or figures
   F. Permission letters (for copyrighted materials)
```

### Common Formatting Errors to Check

```markdown
## Pre-Submission Formatting Checklist

### Document-Level
- [ ] Margins consistent throughout (check after inserting tables/figures)
- [ ] Font consistent throughout (including headers, footers, table text)
- [ ] Page numbers correct and continuous
- [ ] Running head correct (if required)
- [ ] All chapters start on new page

### Headings
- [ ] Heading levels consistent with style guide
- [ ] Table of contents matches actual headings and page numbers
- [ ] No orphan headings (heading at bottom of page with text on next page)

### Tables and Figures
- [ ] All tables/figures referenced in text before they appear
- [ ] Numbering is sequential and correct
- [ ] Titles follow style guide format
- [ ] Notes present when needed
- [ ] Tables do not break awkwardly across pages

### Citations and References
- [ ] Every in-text citation has a reference list entry
- [ ] Every reference list entry has at least one in-text citation
- [ ] Citation format is consistent (no mixing styles)
- [ ] DOIs included where available
- [ ] Hanging indent in reference list

### Appendices
- [ ] Each appendix has a title
- [ ] Appendices referenced in text
- [ ] Page numbers continue from body text
- [ ] IRB approval letter included

### Final Steps
- [ ] Run spell-check one final time
- [ ] Convert to PDF and check formatting is preserved
- [ ] Check that all hyperlinks work (if electronic submission)
- [ ] Verify file size meets submission requirements
```

---

## 6. Post-Defense: Publishing from Your Dissertation

### Strategies for Converting Chapters to Journal Articles

| Approach | Description | Effort | Timeline |
|----------|-------------|--------|----------|
| Single comprehensive article | Condense entire dissertation into one article | High (must cut 80%+ of content) | 3-6 months |
| Results-focused article | Chapter 4 + key elements of 1, 3, 5 | Medium | 2-4 months |
| Methodology article | If your methods are novel, publish the methodology separately | Medium | 2-3 months |
| Literature review article | Chapter 2 as a standalone review (if systematic or comprehensive) | Medium | 2-4 months |
| Multiple articles | Different RQs or themes as separate publications | Varies | 6-12 months |

### Key Differences: Dissertation vs. Journal Article

| Feature | Dissertation | Journal Article |
|---------|-------------|-----------------|
| Length | 150-300+ pages | 5,000-10,000 words |
| Audience | Committee (experts who want detail) | Journal readers (experts who want efficiency) |
| Literature review | Comprehensive (prove you know the field) | Focused (set up the specific gap) |
| Methodology | Exhaustive detail | Sufficient for replication |
| Results | Complete (every analysis) | Selective (most important findings) |
| Discussion | Thorough implications and future research | Concise; focused on contribution |
| Tone | Sometimes instructional | Peer-to-peer scholarly discourse |

---

## Key References

- APA. (2020). *Publication manual of the American Psychological Association* (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.
- Bolker, J. (1998). *Writing your dissertation in fifteen minutes a day*. Holt.
- Dunleavy, P. (2003). *Authoring a PhD*. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Hyatt, L., & Roberts, C. (2023). *The dissertation journey* (4th ed.). Corwin.
- Murray, R. (2025). *How to write a thesis* (5th ed.). Open University Press.
- Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2020). *Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language* (2nd ed.). Routledge.
- Turabian, K. L. (2018). *A manual for writers* (9th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
- University of Chicago Press. (2024). *The Chicago manual of style* (18th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
- Wisker, G. (2012). *The good supervisor* (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.