PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY HEALTH

Transcription

1 PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY HEALTH PHD DEGREE REQUIREMENTS: DISSERTATION QUALIFYING EXAM, DISSERTATION PROPOSAL AND DISSERTATION REVISED JANUARY 2015

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 3 ADVANCEMENT TO CANDIDACY... 3 CURRICULUM AND COMPETENCIES... 4 SAMPLE SCHEDULE... 5 DOCTORAL QUALIFYING EXAMINATION... 6 EXAMINATION COMMITTEES... 6 WRITTEN... 7 ORAL... 7 COMPETENCIES... 8 STUDY AND PREPARATION... 9 SCORING... 9 RECORDING POST EXAMINATION CONSULTATION PETITIONS DISSERTATION COMMITTEE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL DISSERTATION FORMAT OPTIONS ACADEMIC INTEGRITY GRADUATE SCHOOL FORMS DISSERTATION DEFENSE HOW TO SET A DEFENSE DATE CONTACT INFORMATION DQE INTEGRITY FORM Page 2 of 21

3 INTRODUCTION The PhD is a research-based, advanced academic degree that represents the highest certificate of membership in the academic community. It is not a degree granted solely on the basis of the completion of a prescribed course of study, no matter how faithfully pursued. The PhD is granted to individuals who, in addition to completing a prescribed course of study, conduct original research culminating in the doctoral dissertation and who demonstrate superior intellectual inquiry and hold promise for future scholarly work. This document introduces students to the Medical College of Wisconsin PhD Program in Public and Community Health procedures for advancement to candidacy, which includes successful coursework, the Doctoral Qualifying Examinations, the Dissertation Proposal and the Dissertation. ADVANCEMENT TO CANDIDACY Graduate students do not become candidates for the PhD degree until granted formal advancement to candidacy by the Dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. The approval of the Dean of the Graduate School for students advancement to candidacy will be based on: 1. Recommendation by the Research Advisors and Program Director 2. Approval of the students Dissertation Committees 3. The academic record of the students 4. An Honorable or Pass doctoral qualifying exam (DQE) performance 5. An approved Dissertation Proposal 6. The opinion of the PhD Program Advisory Committee concerning overall fitness for candidacy Upon recommendations above, the Dean of the Graduate School will notify students of advancement to candidacy. Continuation of candidacy status is dependent upon continued satisfactory evaluation of students by the Research Advisors and Dean. Page 3 of 21

4 CURRICULUM AND COMPETENCIES COURSEWORK FALL SPRING $ Medical College of Wisconsin Funding (ends December 31 of student s second year) $ Student Research Funding - Internal and External Awards with Faculty (begins January 1 of student s second year) 1 ST YEAR 2 ND YEAR 3 RD YEAR 4 TH YEAR Biostatistics I Introduction to Epidemiology CHI I: Foundations of Public and Community Health Doctoral Seminar Qualitative and Mixed Methods Biostatistics II Qualitative Data Analysis course CHI III: Principles and Practices of Community- Academic Partnerships Doctoral Seminar CTS Research Seminar CHI II: Health Disparities and Underlying Determinants of Health Readings and Research Doctoral Seminar Elective Ethics in Public Health Research CHI IV: Translating Community Health Improvement into Policy Readings and Research Doctoral Seminar Research Ethics Discussion Series CHI VI: Practice of CBPR Readings and Research Elective Doctoral Seminar CHI VII: Practice of CBPR Readings and Research Elective Doctoral Seminar Readings and Research Doctoral Seminar Doctoral Dissertation SUMME R Readings and Research Ethics and Integrity in Science Readings and Research Readings and Research COMPETENCIES INTRODCUED 1. Display a high degree of mastery in appropriate theories, analytical skills, research design and methodology in the public and community health sciences. 2. Identify and apply strategies for interdisciplinary approaches that support collaborative models that interface public health with other health professional disciplines so as to improve the health of the public and community. 3. Incorporate knowledge of cultural, social, behavioral and biological factors in formulating research questions, designing and implementing research. 4. Identify the ethical implications of research. 5. Apply systems thinking skills in the assessment, development, implementation and evaluation of community health improvement efforts. 6. Translate and disseminate research findings in order to improve public and community health in diverse populations. 7. Effectively communicate orally and in writing, present public and community health issues and disseminate findings in area of expertise to appropriate professional and public audiences. 8. Demonstrate experience in developing and sustaining community partnerships. 9. Identify knowledge gaps in the selected field, critically analyze the literature, synthesize relevant information, and formulate focused research questions to address the gaps. 10. Demonstrate knowledge in public and community health policy development, implementation and evaluation. 11. Demonstrate teaching skills in working with students and other professionals in academic, research or practice settings and community settings. 12. Demonstrate an in-depth knowledge and understanding of issues in substantive interest area in the public and community health sciences. 13. Design and conduct original research that contributes to knowledge in selected field. 14. Understand the grant writing process and demonstrate the ability to write and manage research grant proposals. All competencies applied towards doctoral research and dissertation defense. EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING Identification of mentor Introduction to literature reviews Discovery of library resources Introduction to community organization partners Critical thinking training Research methods Community site visits Formalize mentor Doctoral Qualifying Examination Literature Reviews Health policy and advocacy Biostatistical analysis Formation of dissertation committee Dissertation proposal Independent community collaboration Dissertation research Manuscript drafting Grant proposals CBPR training and research Community collaboration Community coalitions Development of publications Defense of dissertation Dissemination of research

5 DISSERTATION QUALIFYING EXAM AND PROPOSAL DEFENSE SCHEDULE DATE TIMELINE FOR EXAM LEAD Part 1 Late June Turn in Literature Review Student Part 2 Part 3 Late June Receive Statistical Analysis Questions Staff Member One Week Later Turn in Statistical Analysis Questions Student One Week Later Receive Two (2) Questions Related to the Literature Review Committee and Staff One week Later Turn in Two (2) Literature Review Questions Student Part 4 August Oral Exam TIMELINE FOR DISSERTATION PROPOSAL PRESENTATION Student and Committee LEAD TBD Late August/Early September Student arranges meeting (date/time/location) with all members of their Dissertation Committee. Notify Program staff and Program Director of date. Be aware of date proposal outline is due to Grad School. A formal presentation by the student of his/her Dissertation Proposal followed by discussion and questions. To allow ample time for discussion and questions, the student should limit presentation to minutes. An evaluation period by the dissertation committee, during which time students will be asked to step out of the room. The students will then be asked to return for the committee s decision. Approximate date Outline Approval Doctoral Dissertation Form and revised proposal outline are due to Graduate School. Approval must be granted by Dean of Grad School no less than 18 months before defense is held in late March of the graduation year. Give copy of signed forms to PhD staff. Student Student and Dissertation Committee Student Page 5 of 21

6 DOCTORAL QUALIFYING EXAMINATION The purpose of the Dissertation Qualifying Exam (DQE) is to measure whether students have the skills needed to successfully complete a dissertation in Public and Community Health. It will test the core competencies and specific knowledge learned from the first two years of course work and the ability to synthesize and apply that knowledge. A list of the core competencies can be found on page 8 of this document. Students will demonstrate critical thinking and expertise related to selected topics in public and community health. Students will also be expected to demonstrate graduate level understanding of quantitative and qualitative analytical methods and epidemiology. The primary rationale behind the DQE process is to ensure that students have the opportunity to compile a comprehensive literature review in areas relevant to their dissertation topic. The secondary rationale for the DQE is to address concerns regarding the assessment of analytic and methodological skill sets. The process is expected to: 1) foster development of expertise in a focused research area, 2) enhance the ability to identify gaps in the literature to generate informed hypotheses and specific aims for dissertation research, 3) ensure understanding of methodological and analytic approaches to conducting research. Overall, the DQE will both provide guided dissertation preparation and assess students ability to successfully complete a dissertation. The DQE will consist of four parts: Part 1: Students will prepare a literature review focused on three relevant topics that will inform their respective dissertation proposals. Part 2: Students will apply statistical analysis skills to an existing dataset, briefly summarize results and critically evaluate research design in a brief report. The analysis component of Part 3 will test the students understanding of biostatistics and epidemiology methods. These are skills that will ensure readiness to design and analyze dissertation research. Part 3: Students will prepare written responses to two questions developed by DQE committee faculty, based on the literature review submitted. The questions in Part 2 will bring in the expertise of the faculty and test the students ability to incorporate feedback that will ultimately strengthen their literature review and proposal. It will also test the core competencies deemed most relevant by the examination committee. Part 4: Oral Exam: The oral exam is a measure of his/her understanding of the materials covered in the program and ability to think critically, synthesize information and verbally communicate thoughtful responses. DOCTORAL QUALIFYING EXAMINATION COMMITTEES The DQE committee will consist of the Advisor and two potential committee members with Page 6 of 21

7 expertise in the topic area. The Advisor and Student will agree upon two committee members and extend the invitation. One committee member must have expertise in analysis. The Program Director must approve the committee. Written Exam Part 1 A well written literature review consisting of three central concepts related to the students dissertation topic. These three concepts will be agreed upon by the student and their advisor. Each concept should have a minimum of 15 papers reviewed. In the event the literature in the area is too sparse to review 15 papers, the students must justify this and review more papers in the other two sections so that the minimum number of manuscripts reviewed is a total of 45. The student will submit the literature review to the committee on the designated date. Part 2 When the student turns in the literature review, they will receive an analytical question. This may be a qualitative analysis, quantitative or epidemiology question. Consideration will be given to the coursework completed by the student. Examples of the type of question include: 1. Analysis of an electronic dataset -quality of the research question posed, approach to analyses, presentation of the data, written description of the findings in two versions: one for scientific community, one for lay community. The analysis will include univariate and multivariate approaches but will not be outside of the scope of the biostatistics coursework. 2. Screening problem - correct calculation of the problem, presentation of disease-related background information, presentation of arguments for/against the value of screening, discussion of biases and issues related to screening Students will have one week to complete Part 2. Part 2 will be open book, open notes. However, no consultation from faculty or peers will be allowed. Part 3 The DQE committee will have two weeks to review the literature review and the two additional committee members (not the advisor) will each compose a question relevant to the literature review that can address any single or combination of the core competencies shown in a table found on page 8 of this document. Students will have one week to write a 5-8 page response to each question. Appropriate citations and reference format are required. Oral Exam Part 4 The Oral Exam will take place shortly after the submission of Part 3. During the oral exam committee members may ask the student questions about any of the core competencies, coursework that has been completed or the written portions of the exam. This is a measure of his/her understanding of the materials covered in the program and ability to think critically, synthesize information and verbally communicate thoughtful responses. No materials may be brought to this portion of the exam. Students are advised to dress professionally and address committee members by Dr. and not by first name. Page 7 of 21

8 DOCTORAL QUALIFYING EXAMINATION COMPETENCIES The DQE measures students ability to synthesize, apply and communicate information learned through didactic instruction in a professional manner while incorporating methodologies learned in coursework. A. Basic Public Health Sciences 1. Demonstrate an in-depth knowledge and understanding of issues in substantive interest area in the public and community health sciences. 2. Display a high degree of mastery in appropriate theories, analytical skills, research design and methodology in the public and community health sciences. B. Community/Academic Partnerships 3. Demonstrate experience in developing and sustaining partnerships through community-based participatory research. 4. Identify and apply strategies for interdisciplinary approaches that support collaborative models that interface public health with other health professional disciplines so as to improve the health of the public and community. C. Research Preparation, Data Collection and Analysis 5. Identify knowledge gaps in the selected field, critically analyze the literature, synthesize relevant information, and formulate focused research questions to address the gaps. 6. Design and conduct original research that contributes to knowledge in selected field. 7. Incorporate knowledge of cultural, social, behavioral and biological factors in formulating research questions, designing and implementing research. 8. Identify the ethical implications of research methods. D. Policy Development, Program Planning and Management 9. Demonstrate knowledge in public and community health policy development, implementation and evaluation. 10. Apply systems thinking skills in the assessment, development, implementation and evaluation of community health improvement efforts. 11. Understand the grant writing process and demonstrate the ability to write and manage research grant proposals. E. Dissemination to Professional and Lay Audiences 12. Translate and disseminate research findings in order to improve public and community health in diverse populations. 13. Effectively communicate orally and in writing, present public and community health issues and disseminate findings in area of expertise to appropriate professional and public audiences. 14. Demonstrate teaching skills in working with students and other professionals in academic, research or practice settings and community settings. Page 8 of 21

9 DOCTORAL QUALIFYING EXAMINATION: STUDY & PREPARATION The purpose of this section is to assist students in reviewing and preparing for the DQE. Courses taken prior to the DQE are designed to provide the basic academic foundation for the content areas to be tested. Students are expected, however, to supplement their course learning with knowledge and skills from additional texts, journal articles, and personal experience. Review Coursework Students should comprehensively review and familiarize themselves with the content of all courses taken during the first two years of study. Helpful tips to Students from Faculty 1. The day you enroll in the PhD program, you are preparing for your academic career. Begin compiling resources and information for your DQE early and keep organized binders and references at your fingertips. Annotated bibliographies are especially helpful. 2. Students are expected to begin their preparation for the DQE well in advance.. A comprehensive, literature review and integrative understanding of the domains that are covered by the questions in the DQE is necessary to pass. 3. It is important to emphasize the comprehensive and integrative nature of the DQE. That is, you are expected to base your responses on the broad knowledge base that you have been exposed to in your program of study, including independent readings, research, and practical experience as well as the specific material covered in courses. 4. Throughout the DQE, you will be evaluated on your ability to organize and critically apply the resources at your disposal and to communicate your response in a professional manner. 5. Reflect and analyze experiences and knowledge gained through your research and community-based training throughout your didactic training. DOCTORAL QUALIFYING EXAMINATION: SCORING Policy and Grading The students will sign a document stating that they understand the format of the DQE and that all work on the exam will be conducted on their own without seeking assistance from others (Faculty, Staff, Students, etc). This form can be found at the end of this document. Students have resources such as statistical packages, the Internet, PubMed, books and literature available for use. The signed form must be submitted prior to the student receiving Part 2 of the exam. Grading rubrics will be created by the committee members to measure the competencies. Each non-advisor committee member will develop a rubric for the question s/he posed and share that Page 9 of 21

10 rubric with the other non-advisor committee member. The Advisor, Program Director, and a PhD Program contact should be copied on the . Each non-advisor committee member should evaluate both of the questions asked, using the rubrics, and meet to discuss and develop a final evaluation of the student s written responses. The final evaluation will reflect an average of each committee member s score. If the student is determined to pass the written part of the exam, the committee members should also develop questions for the oral exam at this meeting. However, the student may be asked any questions relevant to the literature review and core competencies during the oral exam. Once the student is determined to have passed the written part of the DQE, s/he will schedule an oral exam, which will be attended by the student, his/her advisor, and the committee members including the faculty member who writes and grades the statistical question. The committee members will pose questions, hear responses, and then confer to determine whether the student has passed the oral exam. If at any part of the process (written or oral) there is concern or disagreement among committee members, the student s advisor and the Program Director should be notified and will serve as additional evaluators. Students must receive a Pass score on the written portion before taking their Oral Exam. If students do not pass the written portion of the exam, it can be retaken once within three months of the first attempt. Students who do not pass the oral exam on the first attempt may retake the oral component once within three months. Students must pass both the oral and written portions of the DQE in order to advance in the program. Final DQE results will be scored as Honorable, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. A second failure of the DQE indicates students are not suited to the PhD program. DOCTORAL QUALIFYING EXAMINATION: RECORDING Immediately following the successful completion of the DQE, students, with the Research Advisors and Dissertation Committee, must complete the following forms (available on the Graduate School website) and submit them to PhD Program staff who will record the examination outcome and submit to the Graduate School: 1. Doctoral Qualifying Examination Evaluation Form Successful performance on the qualifying examination is required for advancement to candidacy for the PhD degree. Each member of the examining committee completes the form as part of the evaluation of performance during this examination. The forms are then forwarded to the Dean of the Graduate School, along with the Qualifying Examination: Chairman s Report. Page 10 of 21

11 2. Qualifying Examination: Chairman s Report Advancement to candidacy for the PhD degree is made by the Dean of the Graduate School after recommendation by the examining committee, and the chairman of the department or program. This form is the official recommendation of the chairman that the student become a candidate for the PhD degree. Advancement to candidacy is also contingent on approval of the students dissertation committee and research outline/proposal. During the next 90 days (approximate), students will hone their Dissertation Proposal based on feedback from the Oral Exam Committee (i.e. Dissertation Committee). During those days of finalizing the Dissertation Proposal, students should schedule meetings as necessary with the Dissertation Committee to seek final confirmation of readiness to submit the Dissertation Proposal to the Graduate School. Within 90 days of passing the DQE (or no later than 18 months prior to the PhD dissertation defense date), students must submit the final Dissertation Proposal to the Graduate School using the following forms: 1. Committee Approval Doctoral Dissertation Form must be submitted prior to submission of research outline/proposal 2. Outline Approval Doctoral Dissertation must be submitted with research outline/proposal DOCTORAL QUALIFYING EXAMINATION: POST-EXAMINATION CONSULTATION After the DQE has been graded and results reported to the Graduate School, students are encouraged to review their performance with their Research Advisors and Dissertation Committee members, as needed. DOCTORAL QUALIFYING EXAMINATION: PETITIONS Any petition requiring approval for exceptions to the policies within this document must be submitted in writing by the student and their Advisor to the Program Director. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE During the early part of the third semester, students should choose, with the consent of the proposed faculty members and the approval of the Program Director, their Research Advisors (Advisors). These Advisors also serve in the role of Dissertation Committee Chair. Students are encouraged to work closely with their individual Advisor to select four additional members of their Dissertation Committee. Thought should be taken to ensure that all members on the committee will cohesively and comprehensively enhance students research topics, study questions or hypotheses, and/or research design and methods. Page 11 of 21

12 The committee must have at least one faculty member from a department outside of the students degree program. The students, with the approval of their Advisor and the Program Director, may propose that a member of the Dissertation Committee be a faculty member at another accredited institution of higher learning. If they so choose, students will be allowed to add a sixth member to the committee from the community, who may or may not be faculty from another institution. Dissertation Committee composition must be approved by the Dean and by the Graduate Faculty Credentials Committee. In summary: 1. You must have 5 members on your committee 2. You may have up to 6 members on your committee 3. At least 4 must be MCW faculty 4. You may include 1 individual from another institution; 2 with a compelling reason. That would bring your total to 6. DISSERTATION PROPOSAL Students are required to submit an approved Dissertation Proposal to the Graduate School after successful performance on the Written and Oral DQE and prior to advancement to candidacy. The Dissertation Proposal must be approved no less than 18 months before a student s dissertation defense, which is held in late March of the graduation year. Dissertation Proposal Structure Research Proposal (12-15 pages) Supporting Documents Specific Aims (1 page) Research Strategy Research Timeline (1 page) Protection for Human Subjects Bibliography & References Cited Appendix Significance Innovation Approach & Preliminary Studies Research Proposal (12-15 pages total) The dissertation proposal must use the National Institutes of Health grant application format 1 : 1. Specific Aims (1 page) Page 12 of 21

13 State concisely the goals of the proposed research and summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed research will exert on the research field(s) involved. List succinctly the specific objectives of the research proposed, e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, explore a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology. 2. Research Strategy Organize the Research Strategy in the specified order using the following instructions. Start each section with the appropriate section heading: a) Significance, b) Innovation, c) Approach. Experimental details should be cited using the Bibliography and References Cited section. (a) Significance Explain the importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress in the field that the proposed project addresses. Explain how the proposed project will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice in one or more broad fields. Describe how the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field will be changed if the proposed aims are achieved. (b) Innovation Explain how the application challenges and seeks to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms. Describe any novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or intervention(s) to be developed or used, and any advantage over existing methodologies, instrumentation or intervention(s). Explain any refinements, improvements, or new applications of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions. (c) Approach Describe the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses to be used to accomplish the specific aims of the project. Include how the data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted as well as any resource sharing plans as appropriate. Discuss potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success anticipated to achieve the aims. If the project is in the early stages of development, describe any strategy to establish feasibility, and address the management of any high risk aspects of the proposed work. Point out any procedures, situations, or materials that may be hazardous to personnel and precautions to be exercised. Preliminary Studies: Page 13 of 21

14 Supporting Documents Include information on Preliminary Studies as part of the Approach section. Use this section to provide an account of the Program Director s/principal Investigator s (PD/PI) preliminary studies pertinent to this application, including preliminary experience with and outreach to the proposed racial/ethnic group members. This information will also help to establish the experience and competence of the investigator to pursue the proposed project. Peer review committees generally view preliminary data as an essential part of a research grant application. Preliminary data often aid the reviewers in assessing the likelihood of the success of the proposed project. 1. Research Timeline (1 page) 2. Protections for Human Subjects For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46 (as described in Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion), address the involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials. For additional information to assist you in making these determinations, please refer to clusion_a5.pdf and 3. Bibliography and References Cited This section should be a list of all published information referred to in the preceding sections. It is recommended that the format for the references follow an accepted citing style as agreed by students Advisors. A professional style of writing from a peerreviewed journal for all responses, citations and footnotes must be followed. Students may include manuscripts submitted or in preparation. Students may include selected publications based on recency, importance to the field, and/or relevance to the proposed research. 4. Appendix This section should include tables, figures, diagrams (and their accompanying legends) numbered to correspond with their order of appearance in the text. This section might also include study instruments, draft consent forms, etc. In some cases a list of abbreviations used in the text may be included in this section. Helpful Tips The Appendix must have a table of contents cover page. Page 14 of 21

15 Faculty reviewing dissertation proposals will assess the likelihood of the proposed research to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved. Students should consider the NIH Review Criteria when writing their Dissertation Proposals. 1. Significance Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and /or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? 2. Investigator(s) Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well-suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI), do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? 3. Innovation Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed? 4. Approach Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? 5. Environment Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Page 15 of 21

16 Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Dissertation Proposal Format The dissertation format must follow the National Institutes of Health grant application format. 1. The format includes: Research Proposal This section is pages and includes the Specific Aims and Research Strategy sections. The Research Strategy section must include Significance, Innovation and Approach and Preliminary Studies. Supporting Documents This section includes the Research Timeline, Protection for Human Subjects, Bibliography and References Cited and Appendix section. 2. The draft dissertation must be typewritten single-spaced in MS Word using a 12-point font such as Arial or Times New Roman inch top, bottom and right side margin and a 1.5-inch left margin 4. A sample cover page and title page (table of contents) required by the Graduate School can be found in the Student and Faculty Handbook. htm 5. Each page will be numbered on the top-right. The title page does not need to be numbered. 6. Each chapter or section should start on a new page. 7. All tables, figures, figure legends and diagrams related to research findings should be in the Appendix and numbered to correspond with their order of appearance in the text. The Appendix must have a table of contents cover page. 8. The Bibliography and References Cited should contain complete references, including all authors, a complete title, and the inclusive page numbers. 9. A professional style of writing from a peer-reviewed journal for all responses, citations and footnotes must be followed (APA is strongly recommended). Dissertation Modifications During the course of the student research, it may be necessary to slightly modify, change or adapt the dissertation proposal as the students research evolves. These changes should be discussed with the members of the students Dissertation Committee. Page 16 of 21

17 In instances where the committee determines that major modifications are recommended, the students should prepare a brief document that includes, as necessary, (1) the revised hypothesis or research question, (2) modified or new Specific Aims, and (3) modified or new methods. This modified document does not need to be approved by the department chair/program director or the Dean of the Graduate School but will become a part of students permanent records in the Graduate School Office. DISSERTATION FORMAT OPTIONS The PhD candidate must submit a dissertation based on original research of a high scholarly standard that makes a significant contribution to knowledge in the field of public and community health. The dissertation can be completed in one of two formats: 1) The traditional dissertation format or 2) the three manuscripts format, each described below. The candidate will need to discuss the options with his or her advisor and determine if the research project better lends itself to one of the two options. A public defense is required with either option and must comply with all Graduate School requirements. Traditional Dissertation Format: Title Page Abstract Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgments Body o Introduction o Materials and Methods o Results o Discussions o Conclusions Bibliography Signature Page Three Manuscripts Format: Three thematically-related, publishable research papers will comprise the body of the dissertation. The three papers are each free standing, meaning they each can be read and Page 17 of 21

18 understood independently, but should be on related themes. A conclusion and implications for policy and/or future work is still necessary. The candidate must be first author on all papers. The student must assume the primary role in the formulation and write-up of the research, and the dissertation committee must be made aware of the contributions of each co-author. The dissertation committee will determine if the three papers meet the requisites to be publishable papers. If a paper has already been submitted or accepted the student will need to make note of that, but this does not have to be done before the defense of the dissertation. Alternate Dissertation Format: Title Page Abstract Table of contents List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgments Introduction and comprehensive literature review First Paper Second Paper Third Paper Discussion and implications for policy and/or future research Conclusions Bibliography Signature Page ACADEMIC INTEGRITY Honest, ethical, and responsible behavior is as essential to the scientific and medical professions as is academic excellence and scholarship. For students, such behavior is necessary in all areas of the educational experience, including, but not limited to: academic course work, scientific research, ethical use of information and relationships with peers. It is incumbent on all members of the academic community to uphold high standards, to monitor these standards, and to bring to appropriate Medical College administrators concerns regarding dishonest, unethical, or irresponsible behavior. It is the students responsibility to ensure that they know and understand the requirements of this document and conduct themselves with the highest degree of integrity throughout the preparation and execution of their doctoral qualifying examinations, dissertation proposal and advancement to candidacy. At a minimum, this includes avoiding the following: Page 18 of 21

19 Plagiarism: Plagiarism occurs when individuals present the ideas or expressions of another as their own. Students must always credit others ideas with accurate citations and must use quotation marks and citations when presenting the words of others. Cheating: Cheating occurs when students circumvent or ignore the rules that govern an academic assignment. It can include using notes (in physical or electronic form) in a closed-book exam, or submitting the work of another as one s own. If students are not sure about the rules that govern an assignment, it is the students responsibility to ask for clarification. Research Integrity: The integrity of data in public and community health research is a paramount issue for advancing knowledge and the credibility of our professions. For this reason, any intentional misrepresentation of data, or misrepresentation of the conditions or circumstances of data collection, is considered a violation of academic integrity. Misrepresenting data reported in any portion of the DQE is a clear violation of the rules and requirements of academic integrity and honesty. Alleged violations will be brought to the attention of the Graduate School Dean. Reminder: Students are expected to familiarize themselves with all MCW polices and guidelines that can be found on the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences website: GRADUATE SCHOOL FORMS All PhD students are required to accomplish the following IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER before defending and/or submitting a thesis or dissertation for graduation. 1. Successfully pass the qualifying examination or comprehensive examination as deemed by your program. Doctoral Qualifying Examination Evaluation form and Qualifying Examination: Chairperson s Report. 2. Approval of the dissertation committee. Request for Approval of a Thesis or Dissertation Committee form. 3. Approval of the research proposal/outline Approval of Proposal/Dissertation Outline. Outline approval must be granted by the Dean, at least 18 months before the defense is held. 4. Intent to graduate. Intent to Graduate form. 5. A photograph suitable for use in the Commencement Program must be submitted to the Graduate School prior to thesis defense, or March 15th, whichever is earlier in the calendar year. See Photo Guidelines information. 6. Submission of the defense program where appropriate. Page 19 of 21

20 7. Submission of the preliminary copy of the thesis or dissertation to the Dean, two weeks before the defense. These forms can be found on the Graduate School website, Look under the Current Student tab, Forms, Degree Completion Forms. DISSERTATION DEFENSE HOW TO SET A DEFENSE DATE 1. The student selects a date with their Dissertation Committee for their dissertation defense. Per Graduate School, April 1 st is the latest date that a defense can be held for those planning to graduate in May. It is strongly suggested that defenses are held before this April 1 st date to allow time for the unexpected. 2. The student will notify the PhD staff of the date selected immediately to ensure that the PhD staff can arrange a room for the defense. A smaller room will also be reserved, if possible, for the committee to meet after the defense. 3. A flyer template has been posted on the students shared drive in the Graduation folder. The student will complete the flyer and send it on to the PhD staff. 4. The flyer will be approved by the PhD Director before being distributed. 5. Once approved and 30 days before the dissertation, a copy of the flyer will be sent to the Graduate School office by the PhD staff. 6. The flyer/invitation will be sent to all Institute members, PhD in Public and Community Health Program faculty and staff, and interested community members by the PhD staff. 7. The student will forward the flyer/invitation to any others they wish to invite. PROGRAM CONTACT INFORMATION PhD in Public and Community Health Program phdpch@mcw.edu Page 20 of 21

21 PhD Program in Public and Community Health Dissertation Qualifying Exam I have read and understand the PhD Program in Public and Community Health Dissertation Qualifying Exam format. All work will be conducted on my own without seeking assistance from others (faculty, staff, students, etc). I have resources such as statistical packages, the Internet, PubMed, books and literature available for use. Graduate Student Name Graduate Student Signature Date Please sign and return to the PhD Program in Public and Community Health, Suite H2100 Page 21 of 21