Chapter 3 — Original contribution proposal
Lesson map
Lesson 03 published. Map, example, EX015.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["3.1 The proposal"]
N2["3.2 Measures"]
N3["3.3 Ethics and access"]
N4["3.4 Feasibility"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX015"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["3.1 The proposal"]
N2["3.2 Measures"]
N3["3.3 Ethics and access"]
N4["3.4 Feasibility"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX015"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[3.1 The proposal]
|
v
[3.2 Measures]
|
v
[3.3 Ethics and access]
|
v
[3.4 Feasibility]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX015]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) write a doctoral proposal with testable claims; (2) define measures and decision-rights variables; (3) plan ethics and access.
3.1 The proposal
Nadia's proposal has three claims. First, Westmark's decision rights over quality rules and linkage thresholds can be described with a matrix of roles and decisions, following Khatri and Brown's domains. Second, alternative decisions within plausible ranges change regional employment counts by amounts that matter to users. Third, a documented decision process reduces unexplained variation between releases. Each claim names its evidence: the matrix from interviews and documents, the effect sizes from simulation on the synthetic replica, and the variation from comparing releases before and after documentation.
3.2 Measures
For outputs, Nadia measures regional employment counts and their change between releases. For linkage, she measures precision and recall, defined as the share of linked pairs that are true matches and the share of true matches that are linked. For quality, she uses the dimensions from Chapter 2. For governance, she codes each decision by who made it, whether it was documented and whether it was reviewed. Prof. Eriksen asks her to define every measure before running anything, so measures cannot drift toward convenient results.
3.3 Ethics and access
Interviews involve Westmark staff, who might fear criticism of their decisions. Nadia's ethics application promises anonymity, the right to withdraw, review of quotations and storage of recordings on encrypted university systems, deleted after transcription. Access to Westmark's documents is governed by a written agreement that excludes confidential microdata and allows publication of aggregate findings after a review for accuracy, not for content. She notes that a review for content would compromise independence, so the agreement limits Westmark's review to factual errors. Westmark signs it.
3.4 Feasibility
Nadia plans the work across two years: six months for the replica, the decision matrix and the baseline; six months for the main simulation and interviews; six months for validation and the release comparison; and six months for writing and defence. She identifies risks such as delayed interviews and plans fallback analyses that rely on documents alone. Prof. Eriksen approves the proposal after asking her to narrow the release comparison to two indicators, which makes the validation stage achievable within the time available.
Worked example
Nadia proposes three testable claims, defines output, linkage, quality and governance measures, secures ethics with anonymity and a factual-only review clause and plans a feasible two-year schedule.
Synthetic case. The proposal is synthetic; Khatri and Brown (2010) are real.
Errors and limits
Proposals that promise too much fail at validation; narrow scope early.
Exercises
- EX015 — Three claims. State one of Nadia's claims. Rubric: 3 = decision rights matrix; decisions change counts; documentation reduces variation;; 2 = one;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX016 — Precision. Define precision in linkage. Rubric: 3 = share of linked pairs that are true matches;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = wrong;; 0 = none.
- EX017 — Recall. Define recall in linkage. Rubric: 3 = share of true matches that are linked;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = wrong;; 0 = none.
- EX018 — Coding decisions. How is each governance decision coded? Rubric: 3 = who made it, documented, reviewed;; 2 = most;; 1 = one;; 0 = none.
- EX019 — Review clause. What may Westmark review before publication? Rubric: 3 = factual accuracy only;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = content;; 0 = none.
- EX020 — Narrowing. How did Prof. Eriksen narrow the plan? Rubric: 3 = release comparison limited to two indicators;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
Continue studying — lesson 03 (chapter 03 of 08)
← Chapter 02 · Course chapter index · Chapter 04 →
Continue to the next authored lesson.