This paper evaluates five proposed dissertation topics against core academic criteria including testability, objectivity, scope, and relevance. Each topic is assessed for common pitfalls such as speculative future orientation, researcher bias introduced by studying one's own company, vague problem framing, and lack of a causal or corollary relationship to test. The analysis identifies one topic — the effect of bonus schemes on staff turnover rates — as the only candidate that substantially meets the requirements for a valid dissertation, while clearly explaining why the remaining four fall short. The paper serves as a practical guide to understanding what makes a dissertation topic academically sound.
A valid dissertation topic must meet several core academic criteria: it must support a testable hypothesis, be free from researcher bias, maintain a manageable scope, and contribute meaningfully to the academic knowledge base. The five topics evaluated below are assessed against these standards.
The topic of how China can best compete with Europe in the next hundred years is not suitable for a dissertation. There are three major problems with this topic. The first is that it is future-oriented and therefore highly speculative. An examination of past competitive practices would be useful, but to extrapolate that analysis into the future — given the rapid pace of social, economic, and technological change in these regions — is speculative at best. Guesswork, even educated guesswork, is not suitable for a dissertation.
The second reason is that there is no hypothesis that can be proved. The author can develop a hypothesis, but the forward temporal orientation means that the hypothesis cannot be verified. Data cannot be gathered to prove the hypothesis, which invalidates the topic (Moore, 2009). Lastly, looking one hundred years into the future is simply too far, even if one were to accept that a future orientation in a hypothesis were a valid approach. There is no way to know today what the competitive environment will look like in ten years, much less one hundred.
The second topic, "Enterprise-wide resource management in my company," is not an acceptable research topic as presently constructed. Enterprise resource management in a company is a valid subject, as a hypothesis can be developed and tested. While the temptation exists to study a company with which one is familiar — and indeed it can be beneficial to do so — the researcher should not have a personal stake in the company being studied. This leads to bias, or the possibility of bias, which would cast doubt on the findings. A good dissertation must be free of all bias. If a different company were studied, the dissertation topic would be acceptable.
The third topic, "Compatibility problems in my company's network," is also inappropriate. As with the previous topic, using one's own company would introduce the possibility of bias, invalidating the dissertation. In addition, "compatibility problems" is too vague a subject with which to work. The hypothesis would require a specific compatibility problem and would need to examine a different company in order to be valid. Narrowing the focus in this way would also help to keep the dissertation manageable (Rockler-Gladen, 2007).
"Only topic meeting core dissertation validity criteria"
"Subjective evaluation lacking testable causal relationship"
You’re 59% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.