PhD proposal committee comments
Candidature Confirmation - Panel Report Template Panel members are asked to complete this template to assist the Chair in preparing the final panel report. Title & Abstract Candidate Response - Details of Amendments to Research Proposal Aims of the Project The aims are clearly expressed. However, you must make a clear case for studying a) KSA and b) academic group, just saying they have not been studied and commenting that it is important, does not make a case. it would seem that we can generalise from the literature in the area that if employees perceive greater supervisor/leadership/co-worker support that it would result in higher innovation commitment/focus/outcomes. Hence, it needs to be made explicit as to why other studies cannot be generalised to KSA and then how your framework differs from others to reflect this ‘unique’ aspect. A study like this might not have been done because it has no value. It is insufficient to argue to do a study on the basis it has not been done. You must make a clear case why a study of standard concepts, in a fairly typical model, with predictable outcomes in KSA Higher Ed is a worthy aim. Contribution to Knowledge and Statement of Significance Difficulty identifying a theoretical contribution for a PhD. Not sure about the so-what question. The case needs to be made much more strongly regarding what is new about this study. Simply identifying a different location or context is not in itself a research contribution in the absence of clear frameworks used to compare the effects of contexts on the relationships among the study variable. Just saying support of co workers has not been studied before is inadequate, as a vast amount of work has been done by Mike West on Team Climate for innovation whose work you have not mentioned. Make clear why co worker support, leader support and organisational support in the KSA context might be different culturally or in terms of climate or any other factor and then measure that variable. The contribution to knowledge needs to be made clear. For PhD level research, you must show how you are extending theory. Overall and very importantly your theorising is inadequate here; you must state how you will use theory or indeed use social exchange and norms of reciprocity to frame, explore and explain the problem. Second, you must explain - in your study design and selected variables - how you will extend or contribute to theorising on innovation in general. Using a sample from a different country is not a contribution to knowledge unless you measure something about that country that will moderate or make a difference to one of the paths you have presented. Literature Review You claim that Kurtessis et al. (2017) states that POS is inconclusive but the study sates that POS is positive in increasing obligation, trust, etc. Also, there is no mention of innovation at all in the Kurtessis study. In addition, you also claim that variable relationships not clear in the extant literature, yet your hypotheses are directional so seems somewhat contradictory. The candidate needs to engage with higher quality articles. For example, Afsar and Badir (2017) found that perceived organisational support positively affected individual innovative behaviour and suggested for future research into other social support such as supervisor and co-workers support. However, this can be problematic that a key aspect of your study is based on a further research claim in an ABDC C-rank journal (low quality journal; not very rigorous). A PhD should be extending from A* or A-rank journals. your referencing and citations are also full of errors. When talking about theory or concepts you must draw on the original authors for definitions. Many of your claims are overstated, i.e. no research has…. to prove such, you need to provide evidence of the searches, databases used and results; unless you do this, then your statement is insufficient. Methodology and Conceptual Framework Though a good effort, there are limitations here and omissions, more clarity and detail are required about how the hypotheses will address something new. The hypotheses are predictable and not novel at the moment and will not add to the literature. The conceptual model is not at the level of a PhD Any ‘unique’ factors that KSA might have are not reflected in the study framework. The hypotheses are fairly straightforward and predictable which links back to the ‘so-what’ question mentioned previously. Ensure that all items in the one construct are from the one study, otherwise Cronbach alpha is not sufficient. It will require other reliability, validity and robustness tests. You need to explain why you have selected PLS and why PLS-SEM is the best way to answer the research questions. Use scholarly and reputable references. What are the reasons for choosing PLS-SEM, - authors recommended it applicability in relation to sample size in selected contexts, distributional assumptions, use of secondary data, statistical power and the need or not for goodness-of-fit testing? Look at the latest research work (not research gate but in top journals) and the pro and cons of the partial least squares variance-based approach over SEM using AMOS. Do not confuse the tool with the analytical methods. Methodological developments associated with PLS-SEM are rapidly emerging. In light of more recent research and methodological developments in the PLS-SEM domain, guidelines for the method’s use need to be continuously extended and updated. Use the most current and comprehensive scholarly debate on the PLS-SEM method and the metrics applied to assess its solutions. But most important you must justify with evidence the reason you selected PLS – SEM over SEM. Citation Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), "When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM", European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 Your understanding and explanation of sample selection has errors and omissions. SEM traditionally requires much greater data than you have identified. In addition, the table you have used is for a sample size where measuring proportions or refers to ‘power’. The guideline mentioned is also not to be used if you are comparing two groups (or two points in time) which you might at some stage. Be clear why you have selected that sample size, explain what you mean by random sampling and how you will do it, explore representation and be more specific about the sample size based on power needed to do SEM/ PLS-SEM and CFA. Use good references sources to justify your sample. At present you have picked a number that is a proportion of the population but not how you will get the sample i.e. if you obtain 382 from one organisation or 200 from one or 182 from another or equal lots from each university. Also make clear how your sample is stratified, tenure in role will have an effect on commitment as well type of employment contract, i.e. fulltime, part -time, tenure sessional. How are you going to treat these data, as controls/moderators and how are you going to make sure your sample is equally inclusive of the range of levels and employment types or are you going for just one level. There will be groups nested in your data e.g. by organisation, employment category, demographics, you need to be able to explain how these attributes will affect your DV and interact with you mediator. All this detail must be spelled out with evidence/referencing. Reference List Ensure that all cited articles in the text are in the reference section (e.g.) Settoon, Bennett and Liden (1996) Key study but not referenced; as well as Afsar and Badir (2017) Key study but not referenced. Multiple errors in the reference list must be addressed in the revision. Errors in referencing books in particular are noted, the city is missing and many other references; in some detail is missing for example of the journal and pages. You note you did an Endnote course; however, attention has been sparse into entering the details as what goes in is what comes out of Endnote. In-text citations books A page number is required if you are paraphrasing, summarising or quoting directly: (Karskens 1997, p. 23) Ward (1966, p. 12) suggests that If you are only citing the main idea of the book: (Karskens 1997) References Include information in the following order: · author's surname, and initial(s) · year of publication · title of publication (in italics and with minimal capitalisation), · edition (if applicable. Abbreviated as 'edn') · publisher · place of publication. Karskens, G 1997, The Rocks: life in early Sydney, Melbourne University Press, Carlton. Ward, R 1966, The Australian legend, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Additional Comments There are multiple errors of expression, tense, plural and word use. Seek editorial help from the Learning Hub. Make sure that the revised version is free of proofing and expression errors. (Chair Only) The panel will classify the candidature presentation and proposal in one of the following four categories: · Confirmed; no amendments required. Candidature documentation, together with the Panel report, will be forwarded to the Flagship Institute Deputy Director, or nominee, for final sign-off and candidature approval. · Confirmed subject to satisfactory completion of minor amendments. Candidates will have, following receipt of their Report via email, up to 20 working days (4 Weeks) to revise and resubmit the candidature proposal. Chair to review and approve resubmitted proposal. Flagship Institute Deputy Director, or nominee: final sign-off and candidature approval. · Confirmed subject to satisfactory completion of major revisions. Candidates will have, following receipt of their Report via email, up to 30 working days (6 weeks) to revise and resubmit the candidature proposal. Chair and one Panel member to review and approve resubmitted proposal. Flagship Institute Deputy Director, or nominee: final sign-off and candidature approval. · Not confirmed – candidature is deferred. Candidates will have up to 40 working days (8 weeks) to complete a resubmission. Entire panel to review and approve resubmitted version (no oral presentation required unless requested). Flagship Institute Deputy Director, or nominee: final sign-off and candidature approval. Chair Signature:Date: 8/5/2020