Greetings everyone,
A quick reflection (and perhaps rant) based on a chat and I just had regarding his problem statement. Todd wrote an excellent problem statement that unpacks a multilayered issue in non-profits: Boards of Directors often hire based on perceived leadership qualities, but the actual leadership competencies needed to secure an NPO’s financial sustainability are often lacking.
He submitted it to his chair, and the feedback made no mention of the argument he built, the nature of the research gap, or how effectively he problematized the issue. Instead, the feedback focused entirely on template compliance—too long, too complex, not aligned with the required structure.
This experience is common in many non-traditional doctoral programs. The dissertation process can feel heavily templated, and true scholarly thinking often gets overshadowed by canned language and conformism. That's frustrating because everyone in here is passionate about their research and bring a wealth of knowledge and experience on their topics.
This is exactly why Dissertation Demystified exists!
Our goal is to help you navigate these program requirements without sacrificing the rigor or integrity of your research. You can meet the template and still produce meaningful, high-quality doctoral work.
We’re here to help you balance both, every step of the way. I know you’ve had similar experiences at Walden, with your chair simply saying “follow the MEAL plan” without any substantive guidance. And many other members will likely encounter similarly frustrating or discouraging interactions. Note: I’m not bashing Liberty, Walden, or dissertation chairs (most are well-meaning scholars who themselves are required to advise within the framework given to them). But it does give food for thought about how the doctoral education space sometimes needs to be held to a higher standard. And together, we will do just that!