Page 1 Of 52016 Dissertation Milestone Table

Page 1 Of 52016 Dissertation Milestone Tablethe Table Below Shows The

The table below delineates the eight review levels essential for doctoral dissertation approval within Grand Canyon University (GCU). Each review level functions iteratively, permitting repeated assessments until the submission aligns with GCU standards and broadly accepted scholarly research norms. The table serves as a strategic planning tool to establish target completion dates for each milestone and review, alongside tracking actual accomplishment dates to facilitate plan adjustments. The review levels encompass a sequence starting from the initial Prospectus review to the final Dean’s approval and ProQuest publication, involving various forms, documents, and approval authorities at each stage. Key documents include the Prospectus, Dissertation Proposal (Chapters 1-3), Research Data Instruments, IRB approvals, Dissertation Manuscripts (Chapters 1-5), formatting checklists, and the final signed dissertation for Dean's approval and ProQuest submission. The process ensures rigorous scholarly validation, ethical compliance, and proper formatting before the dissertation's final acceptance and publication.

Paper For Above instruction

The process of achieving doctoral dissertation approval at Grand Canyon University (GCU) involves a comprehensive, multi-tiered review system designed to uphold scholarly standards, ethical considerations, and institutional requirements. This system comprises eight distinct but interconnected review levels, each critical for progressing toward the ultimate goal of final dissertation approval and publication. Understanding these levels provides clarity and structure for doctoral candidates as they navigate the complexities of scholarly research, approval protocols, and administrative procedures.

Level 1 Review: Prospectus Review and Recommendation

The journey begins with the submission of the research prospectus, which includes ten strategic points outlining the research's scope, purpose, and methodology. The chair and methodologist review this document, with the chair sending the prospectus via the Learning and Development Portal (LDP) email to the methodologist. Feedback from this review determines whether the prospectus meets initial scholarly and institutional standards to proceed to the next phase. This initial step ensures the research foundation is sound and feasible.

Level 2 Review: Proposal Review and Recommendation by AQR

Following the prospectus approval, the candidate submits a full dissertation proposal (Chapters 1-3) for review by the Audit and Qualitative Review (AQR) reviewer. This review can include a conference call to discuss the proposal with the committee. The committee reviews the proposal along with scoring criteria tables, or without, depending on specifics. The AQR reviewer provides an approval email indicating readiness for the proposal defense, initiating scheduling and logistical preparations by the dissertation committee chair. This review verifies the proposal’s alignment with scholarly standards and research feasibility.

Level 3 Review: Proposal Defense and Dissertation Committee Approval

Once the proposal passes the review, the candidate conducts a formal defense, presenting their research plan to the dissertation committee. The committee evaluates the Updated 10 Strategic Points document, the PowerPoint presentation, and the proposal. The committee's approval signifies consensus that the research plan is viable, ethical, and methodologically sound, allowing progression to the data collection phase.

Level 4 Review: IRB Review and Approval

Subsequently, the researcher submits comprehensive documents to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for ethical clearance. Items include the D-35 form, research instruments, site approvals, and the final IRB documents. The IRB reviews to ensure the protection of human subjects and compliance with ethical standards. Approval from the IRB is mandatory before any data collection begins, safeguarding research integrity and participant safety.

Level 5 Review: Approving the Dissertation for Defense

After IRB approval, the candidate submits their dissertation proposal (Chapters 1-5) for review by the AQR. The committee reviews the comprehensive manuscript, assessing scholarly quality and readiness for defense. The AQR reviewer recommends whether the dissertation is prepared for defense, with an approval email serving as formal confirmation. This step ensures the dissertation is sufficiently developed and aligns with university standards.

Level 6 Review: Dissertation Review and Recommendation by Full Committee

Following approval for defense, the candidate presents their dissertation draft (Chapters 1-5) to the full committee for review. The committee evaluates the manuscript, ensuring that it meets scholarly standards, has undergone necessary revisions from the defense, and is ready for final formatting and approval. The review confirms that the research is complete, coherent, and ready for submission to the next stage.

Level 7 Review: Form/Format Review & Approval of Dissertation

Prior to final submission, the dissertation undergoes formatting and style review. The committee, along with the reviewer, assesses that all formatting guidelines, form requirements, and revisions have been adequately addressed. The candidate submits the final version with the form and format checklist completed and signed by the chair, marking readiness for final approval. This step ensures adherence to institutional formatting standards and readiness for dissemination.

Level 8 Review: Dean’s and Final Approval; ProQuest Publication

The final stage involves the dean's review of the completed dissertation manuscript. The document, including the signature page, is submitted into IRBNet for the dean’s review and approval. Once approved, the dissertation is signed by the dean and forwarded for publication. The final approved dissertation is then submitted to ProQuest for digital archiving and public access, completing the doctoral journey. This final approval signifies full institutional endorsement and scholarly contribution.

Conclusion

Completing a doctoral dissertation at GCU involves a meticulous, multi-layered approval process designed to safeguard scholarly integrity, ethical compliance, and quality standards. Each review level functions as a checkpoint, ensuring the research progresses systematically from initial concept through to final publication. By adhering to this structured approach, doctoral candidates contribute rigorously vetted, ethically sound, and academically robust research, culminating in the dissemination of new knowledge through publication and scholarly recognition. Understanding the intricacies of each review level helps candidates navigate the process efficiently and achieve their academic goals effectively.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA.
• Barnes, S., & Mouton, J. (2015). The GUIDE to doctoral writing: From proposal to defense. University of South Africa Press.
• Council of Graduate Schools. (2011). Guidelines for thesis and dissertation approval processes. CGS.
• Grand Canyon University. (2023). Dissertation process overview. GCU Official Website.
• Hyde, K. F. (2000). Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research, 3(2), 82-89.
• Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2018). Practical research: Planning and design (12th ed.). Pearson.
• National Institutes of Health. (2017). Ethical guidelines for human subjects research. NIH Policy.
• Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Sage Publications.
• Walker, M. (2016). A guide to academic writing: The dissertation process. Routledge.