Facebook
LinkedIn
X
For my long-time readers, you know that I use this platform not only to give advice to my fellow doctoral students and candidates but also to air my grievances.
Over the past several years, many people have reached out to thank me for my candor and thoughts on the program.
Well, dear readers, today’s topic is one that many may disagree with. I firmly believe that Liberty University is “dumbing down” the Doctoral Research Project.
Let me explain…
My wife, Michele Forto, is working on her tasks in 785, and it is a vastly different guide and template from when I went through it. I finished my project in November 2024.
Honestly, I think they diminished the project with the updates. Sure, there was a lot of repetitiveness in the old guides, but this new one cuts out a vast amount of scholarship.
For example, they only allow one research question and a couple of sub-questions. I had four research questions. How can you conduct viable research, let alone a robust interview guide, with just one question that they are practically writing for you?
The new guide doesn’t allow a research paradigm. This is a cornerstone of viable research.
I don’t know what the rest of the project holds for her and others, but I’m severely disappointed.
I posted this on the Liberty DSL Group on Facebook and asked for their thoughts.
Needless to say, I got a wide variety of responses
One person who went through the program at about the same time I did said, “I was mad as hell when they gutted IRB approval and reduced the content requirements for the lit review and research questions.”
Several agreed with him.
For more context for my original post, I added:
I recall a specific day last August when everything changed, and the video, new guide, and template were released. I was at a conference in Washington, D.C., and I excused myself to call my chair.
She explicitly stated that this is being done at the behest of many students who have complained about the process and the workload of the chairs and administrative reviewers. My chair was also an admin reviewer, and we discussed the behind-the-scenes processes many times.
Look, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m done, and I’m happy with the work I’ve done. I learned everything I could to become an “expert” on my topic, and it has opened a lot of doors, but I also know that short-cutting the project because of workload or complaining doesn’t help anyone in the long run.
One person who was on the cusp of the two program changes undertook a hybrid project. He said, “Mine was a blend because I switched right before task 13. With that said, I did have to change the research question to a more general one with more detailed sub-questions. These were all very similar to my original research questions, though, and only very slightly changed my interview guide. As for research paradigm, I ended up leaving all of that in there, so my final project was a hybrid between the two.”
One of my biggest gripes is that they removed the requirement to include a research paradigm.
I said in the post, “The research paradigm is a key component of research. There is a significant difference between a pragmatic approach, a positive approach, and a constructivist approach, among others.
How you approach your project with one of these paradigms informs how you continue. Removing that is like taking away the playbook for an NFL offense. It’s just crazy to me.”
Another person who finished, who also happens to be on the dissertation committee, said, “While I agree on the value of identifying the research paradigm (it showed an important alignment between the Problem Statement, RQs, and Research Design), as a PhD dissertation Chair at another university its use is not included in their template. When I work with candidates and serve on dissertation committees, this might be why I have observed a loss of alignment as they progress through the qualitative process. The research paradigm doesn’t necessarily have to be included as a discussion topic, but to ignore its value risks explaining why a particular research design answers the RQs.”
Opposing View
One current candidate did not take kindly to my opinion. She said, “I’m in the new guide and offer the following: according to research case studies (which is what this is), involve deep exploration of a ‘bounded system’ and having too many questions can fragment the analysis (Yen, 2018). Furthermore, qualitative research offers depth: a single research question, supported by sub-questions, enables rich data collection and nuanced interpretation (Creswell & Poth, 2018). A well-structured question set supports alignment across the problem statement, purpose, conceptual framework, and data collection tools. Having one main research question does not mean you only ask participants one interview question. My guide has 12, and I’m on Task 11 admin review.
Single-case studies are methodologically valid when the case is bounded, meaning it is defined by a specific time, place, and participant; data is collected from multiple sources; and the inquiry is in-depth and contextual. There is a common misunderstanding that’s reducing the number of research questions limits philosophical rigor; however, in reality, the paradigm (constructivist, interpretivist) still drives the research design, data collection, and analysis. The reduced research question reflects the focused scope, not a diminished paradigm.
Liberty’s design is academically sound and aligned with qualitative research norms, and it does not limit the ability to develop a rich, theory-informed protocol. Remember, qualitative research is about depth, context, and participant meaning, not breadth.”
I disagreed wholeheartedly with her take and said, “In my opinion, under the old guide, we learned how to be good researchers at the doctoral level. Hopefully, that skill can be applied in future endeavors by those who have earned their doctorates.
I see and hear from people all of the time two things: they just wanted to be done as fast as possible, and didn’t care about it once they were done.
And, complaining that the project was too time-consuming and rigorous.
To me, it just seemed that the university bowed down to these demands and made it “easier.”
This is what I disagree with.
There is an old saying that your dissertation (or project) doesn’t make you a doctor, but what you do with it after does. To me, it’s failing students by just allowing them to skip pertinent steps in the process.”
She replied, “Adding that the research encourages precision and depth within a bounded inquiry. Peer-reviewed literature continues to underpin every element of the study.
Several scholars like Merriam & Tisdell (2016), Creswell & Poth (2018), and Yin (2018) support this type of focused design, noting that clarity often strengthens rather than weakens scholarly contribution.”
I disagreed again, and she insisted that I write a paper on qualitative research design.
Look, I don’t know the answers here. I do know that when they remove key components of the DRP to accommodate those who are complaining or the university staff (chairs and admin reviews) and their workload, it is not helping us become better researchers or professional doctors. It is making our program less robust.
What are your thoughts on this? I would love to hear from you.
Let’s Connect…
Oh, if you are on X/Twitter, I highly encourage you to follow the hashtags, #AcademicChatter and #AcademicTwitter both are great threads with advice, motivation, and a very supportive community and if you wouldn’t mind, give me a follow at @robertforto and send me a tweet letting me know you found my blog helpful!Materials
Support the Blog
I get a small commission from Amazon by clicking and possibly buying something on the items below. A little can go a long way, and thank you very much for the support. Even if something here doesn’t fit your needs by clicking on one of the links and going to Amazon, buying something else through the site on that visit helps the blog too. It is called an “affiliate link,” which means that a click is a few cents in my pocket without any upcharge to you for your items. If you are feeling REALLY generous or if you want to support in some other way, you can always shoot a buck or two on PayPal at live@dogworksradio.com
