April 15, 2011
PhD in Policy Studies
Guidelines for Dissertation Proposals
School of Graduate Studies: Related Policies
(see additional details on SGS website).
Excerpts from:
1) POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMISSIONS AND STUDIES (MASTER’S
AND PhD PROGRAMS)
http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/senate/policies/pol142.pdf
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FACULTY ADVISOR; MEMBERS OF THE SUPERVISORY
COMMITTEE; AND, THE GRADUATE STUDENT
http://www.ryerson.ca/graduate/policies/documents/Responsibilities.pdf
2)
Dissertation Supervisory Committee of two to four persons, composed of the
Supervisor
(and co-Supervisor, if applicable) and at least one other School of Graduate Studies
faculty member from the student's program. Where appropriate, a School of Graduate
Studies faculty member from outside the student's program, a faculty member from
outside the School of Graduate Studies, or an expert professional in the field of the
dissertation may be recommended as a member of the Dissertation Supervisory
Committee, subject to approval by the Dean of Graduate Studies.
The Supervisor together with the Supervisory Committee shall:
a) meet regularly with the student and assign an appropriate performance designation
of INP or UNS at the end of each term; b) review the student's background
preparedness, and set the date for the Comprehensive Examination. Upon successful
completion of the Comprehensive Examination, the Supervisory Committee shall
forward the recommendation to proceed with the research to the Program Director
for approval. Upon unsuccessful completion of the comprehensive exam, detailed
reasons for the decision will be supplied in writing by the Supervisor to the Dean of
Graduate Studies, the Program Director and the student within two weeks;
c) formally approve the dissertation proposal;
The Examining Committee will be composed of one member of the supervisory
committee; two faculty members from the student’s program who are members of
SGS; one faculty member from outside of the program who is a member of the School
of Graduate Studies; one member external to the University who is an expert in the
field of the dissertation, experienced with PhD level graduate studies, and at arm's
length from the dissertation; and the Dean of Graduate Studies or designate, who
shall serve as the non-voting Chair of the committee If appropriate, an additional
1
April 15, 2011
member may be recommended who is an expert professional in the field of the
dissertation, or a Ryerson University faculty member who is not a member of the
School of Graduate Studies.
Guidelines for Dissertation Proposals
PhD in Policy Studies
Supervisor
On admission to the program a student will be tentatively assigned an “Advisor” from the list
of potential supervisors they identified in their application or another faculty member with
expertise in the area of the student’s research. It is expected that students will meet with
their Advisor and other potential supervisors in Year 1. By the end of Year 1 students will be
required to select their supervisor and submit the relevant form to the Program Director for
approval.
Supervisory Committee
The student’s Supervisory Committee shall be comprised of his/her Supervisor and at least
two additional faculty members affiliated with the program (one of which must be from the
student’s chosen field). It is expected that a student’s supervisory committee be established
by the Fall of Year 2.
Submitting the Proposal
The student shall submit a written draft of the proposal (20-30 pages double spaced) to
his/her Supervisor and then committee members for feedback and preliminary approval. Each
time a document is submitted for feedback and approval to members of the Supervisory
Committee, the student should allow a minimum of 2 weeks for feedback.
Typically the final draft will be submitted by the end of the winter term in Year 2. After
preliminary approval of the document has been granted by the Supervisor and Supervisory
Committee, the student will be asked to submit the final copy to the Director of the program
so an oral presentation can be scheduled.
The copy to be presented should be submitted to the Program Administrator so it can be
posted on Blackboard.
The oral presentation should ideally be scheduled by the Spring of Year 2, to allow
dissertation research to begin in spring/summer term of Year 2. The dissertation proposal
should not be submitted any later than end of Year 2 (end of August).
Oral Presentation of the Proposal
The student is required to orally present the proposal to his/her supervisory committee,
members of the field and any other interested faculty and students from the program.
This will normally be done by the end of Year 2 or Fall of Year 3 at the latest.
2
April 15, 2011
It is the responsibility of the Supervisor to ensure that the comments and suggestions are
incorporated after the oral presentation.
If the proposal is initially rejected, the student shall be allowed a maximum of two additional
submissions to receive approval.
Final Approval and Submission of the Proposal
Final approval of the proposal is the responsibility of the Supervisor and Supervisory
Committee.
A cover sheet (Dissertation Proposal for the PhD Degree) bearing the approval signature of the
Supervisor and each committee member shall be attached to the final proposal and submitted
to the Program Director/Administrator.
3
April 15, 2011
Format of the Dissertation Proposal
PhD in Policy Studies
DRAFT
1. Title Page
Candidate’s name, student number, field, program name, title, date, Supervisor and
members of Supervisory Committee should be included in the title page.
2. Abstract
The abstract is expected to be brief (not to exceed 350 words) and should summarize
the following: Introduction, Statement of the Problem, Background of the Study,
Research Questions or Hypotheses, and Methods and Procedures.
3. Introduction
This section introduces the reader to the study and provides a general overview of the
circumstances, issues, and background leading up to the problem/topic under
investigation.
4. Background of the Study, Literature Review & Conceptual Framework
This section should include a review of the relevant theoretical and empirical works
which provide a broad background and theoretical grounding to the study. The scope
of the project should be clearly outlined.
This section should indicate that the candidate has a good working knowledge of the
literature relevant to their field of study. They should discuss the current state of
knowledge, its present limitations and how their study fits into theory and knowledge
in the field. They should also indicate the extent to which their study will result in an
original contribution in their field.
5. Research Questions/Hypotheses
Research questions or hypotheses should be stated clearly. These should flow logically
from the discussion of the Background of the Study and should be consistent with the
Statement of the Problem.
6. Methods and Procedures
This section should indicate what type of study is being conducted, how the study will
be conducted, what data or information will be used, how it will be obtained. The
research method section should include overall research design, delineation of the
method and procedures for executing it. Thus, the section should convey the
appropriateness of the data/information for answering the research questions; and
describe the techniques for analyzing the data with direct reference to the research
questions or hypotheses.
4
April 15, 2011
If your research involves working with human subjects, this section should also outline
the ethics approval procedures which will need to be completed and submitted to the
Ryerson Ethics Board prior to initiating the study. The proposal requirements are not
fully satisfied until ethics approval has been granted.
7. Limitations and Delimitations
A limitation identifies potential weaknesses of the study. A delimitation addresses
the scope of the study, things you are not doing and why you have chosen not to do
them. This section should be based on things that a reader might reasonably expect
you to do, but for clearly explained reasons, you have decided not to do.
8. Timelines
A timeline or table detailing the planned progress of the project must be included.
Milestones against which progress can be monitored and assessed should be identified.
9. Figures and Tables
The inclusion of explanatory figures and tables is encouraged. They may be used in
appropriate places in the document.
A tentative dissertation outline is also encouraged.
10. References
All references cited in the proposal should be included. Consult with your supervisor if
other references should be included beyond those directly cited in your proposal.
11. Appendices [if applicable]
5
April 15, 2011
DRAFT - Criteria for Assessment of Dissertation Proposals
PhD in Policy Studies
Introduction and Statement of the Problem:






Does the introduction provide a general overview of the issues surrounding the study?
Is the problem under investigation clearly stated?
Is evidence used to demonstrate the significance of the problem?
Are important terms defined?
Are assumptions clearly stated?
Are major assertions that lay ground work for the study articulated?
Background and Review of the Literature:





Is the study grounded in a larger body of research?
Is the review current and representative of work in the area?
Are related studies examined critically and gaps identified?
Does the review provide a clear rationale of the study?
Is the review well organized, using sub-sections where appropriate?
Research Questions/Hypotheses:


Do the research questions/hypotheses develop a specific focus for the study?
Do the questions/hypotheses support the problem statement and background sections?
Methodology and Limitations:








Is the research design described clearly and appropriate for the study?
Are the sample and participants fully described?
Are data gathering procedures fully explicated and appropriate for the study?
Are analytical procedures fully explicated and appropriate for the study?
Is the technical merit of instruments described clearly?
Are issues related to limitations and/or trustworthiness satisfactorily identified and
addressed?
Do the sampling, data collection, and analytical procedures appropriately match the
problem statement and research questions?
Are the instruments or interview guides acceptable and appropriate for the study?
Other:





Does the proposal demonstrate a high quality of written expression?
Does a consistent conceptual framework unite the problem statement, research
questions, and methods section?
Are applicable supporting documents included and satisfactory?
Is an appropriate citation style used correctly and consistently?
Does the proposed study adhere to conventional wisdom related to ethics?
6
April 15, 2011

Does the abstract summarize the contents of the proposal clearly and accurately?
Issues related to the Literature Review:
Given that the comprehensive exam is primarily a literature review in the dissertation
proposal the literature should interweave into the background, research questions and
methods sections. This informs the reader of what we do know and what we need to
know. This serves to bolster the argument which you are crafting. Rather than
summarizing the various pieces of literature in detail (by reviewing the methods and
the dependent variable and the findings) you should be explaining what matters about
that study. Only when there is direct bearing on the study you are doing, might you
want to describe a study in depth. Regardless of what organizational strategy you use
to present the literature, keep in mind to do an ANALYSIS of the literature.
What are the conceptual and methodological strengths and weaknesses? What are the
things we can say with confidence, and what is speculative and tentative? What is
clearly established and what is missing? By identifying the gaps, you can locate your
own research.
By the end of the proposal you want the reader to be convinced - both of the
importance of this research and of your way of researching it.
7