Main Article Content
The present article aims to critically observe and interpret the methodological deficiencies as found in randomly selected 14 doctoral theses submitted to two different universities in India. Despite their serious deviation from the expected methodological standards, all those theses were accepted and approved by the universities and scholars concerned conferred with PhD degrees. Undoubtedly, those theses kept in the reference sections at the respective university libraries would potentially misguide and mislead the future researchers. Some of the common technical deficiencies, as have been noticed, include (1) absence of careful thoughts in framing research titles, (ii) biased method of data collection, (ii) absence of logical explanation in favour of sample size and sample selection process, (iii) designing and execution of instrument for data collection, (iv) theory formulation in terms of framing of objectives, hypotheses and operational definitions etc. The article attempts to present the critical observations on case-to-case basis so that their conceptual, instrumental and procedural deficiencies and deviations are easily understood by the academicians, researchers and students. The content of this article is divided in to three broad sections. The first section deals with an introduction to quantitative and qualitative research methods and their advantages and limitations. The next section deals with the review of the selected theses followed by conclusion and suggested remedial measures. The objective of this article is purely academic and its scope is limited to enhancement of quality of future research studies in the domains and related fields.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Babbie, E. R.. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. 12E. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Publications.
Black, T.R. (1999). Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences: An Integrated Approach to Research Design, Measurement and Statistics. London: Sage.
Brians, C., Leonard,et al. (2011). Empirical Political Analysis: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods. 8E. Boston, MA: Longman.
Gay, L.R. and Peter, A. (2003). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. 7E. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril Prentice Hall.
Goswami, I. (2012). Collabourative Research in Management Education and its Inseparable Bond with Social Sciences. EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies, Vol: 2 (11), pp.231-239.
Hopkins, W.G. (2000). Quantitative Research Design. Sportscience,Vol: 4(1).
McNabb, D.E. (2008). Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. 2E. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Singh, K. (2007). Quantitative Social Research Methods. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.