2.4 Doctoral program issues: commentary on companion dissertations  (Page 4/14)

Multiple Case Study Model

A second format for the companion dissertation is the multiple case study model that may elaborate one or more research questions. The multiple case model for companion dissertations is characterized by a collaboratively developed research question that envelopes two, three, or more cases extending from that one question. For example, one research question for three companion dissertations could be,“What content and instructional strategies should be included in a basic statistics course created for both practicing and prospective school principals?”In this design, the three candidates would be expected to complete a one-year research seminar dedicated to the following essential tasks: (a) creating a common theoretical framework (review of relevant literature), (b) constructing a dissertation proposal that specified both common and individual research tasks for each candidate, and (c) designing a common framework for organizing the narrative to be presented in each companion dissertation. This format differs from the traditional five chapter dissertation in which a separate review of literature chapter is presented as the traditional chapter two. In this model, the candidates’proposals would have four parts:

• A collaborative elaboration of a theoretical framework developed in a research seminar during coursework.
• A second section of the proposal including the common purpose and research questions to be addressed in each dissertation.
• A third section of the proposal including the common research design used to guide the unique and collaborative empirical efforts to be undertaken in each companion dissertation.
• A final section of the proposal describing how the narrative for each dissertation would be organized into five parts (chapters).

In this multiple case study model, all three dissertation proposals may be presented at on single proposal session. In this case, the same chair(s) and two committee members are recommended to be the same with a fourth committee member being different on each committee.

As an example, Jones (1999), Etheredge (1999), and Polnick (1999) developed three companion dissertations that followed an agreed-upon structure for a five-chapter dissertation: (a) Introduction presented the theoretical framework and literature review, intent of inquiry (problem, purpose, and research questions; basically the same chapter for all three dissertations), design of inquiry (process and expected outcome for each phase; basically the same chapter for all three), and a review of how the dissertation narrative was to be organized, (b) Phase One elaborated the intent, actual implementation method, and research findings for the first phase in which each candidate logged entries into a personal daily journal, took statements from school principal colleagues, and investigated appropriate situations encountered in the school principal literature dealing with data-based decision making (dissertation chapter diverges among the three), (c) Phase Two elaborated the intent, actual implementation method, and research findings for the second phase in which the candidate served as a statistics and design consultant to a practicing principal during a data-based action research project (dissertation chapter diverges for each candidate), (d) Phase Three elaborated the intent, actual implementation method, and research findings for the third phase in which each candidate developed an inventory of recommendations (dissertation is different for each), and (e) Summary and Conclusions provided a brief overview of the detailed information presented in the first four chapters (dissertation is similar yet divergent for each).