14Dissertation ProspectusInsert Prospectus Title Sub.docx

14
Dissertation Prospectus
<Insert Prospectus Title >
Submitted by
<Insert Name>
<Insert Submission Date>
<Insert Chair Name>
The Prospectus Overview and Instructions
The prospectus is brief document that serves as a road map for
the dissertation. It provides the essential framework to guide the
development of the dissertation proposal. The prospectus builds
on the 10 Strategic Points (shown in Appendix A) and should be
no longer than 6-10 pages, excluding the criteria tables and the
appendices. The prospectus will be expanded to become the
dissertation proposal (Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of the dissertation),
which will, in turn, be expanded to become the complete
dissertation (Chapters 1-5). In short, the prospectus is a plan for
the proposal. Prior to developing the prospectus, the 10
Strategic points should be reviewed with the chair and
committee to ensure the points are aligned and form a clear,
defined, and doable study. The10 Strategic Points should be
included in Appendix A of this prospectus document.
It is important to ensure the prospectus is well written from the
very first draft. The most important consideration when writing
the prospectus is using the required criteria specified in the
criterion table below each section and writing specifically to
each criterion! Also critical is for learners to follow standard
paragraph structure: (1) contains a topic sentence defining the

focus of the paragraph, (2) discusses only that single topic, (3)
contains three to five sentences, and (4) includes a transition
sentence to the next paragraph or section. The sentences should
also be structurally correct, short, and focused. Throughout the
dissertation process, learners are expected to always produce a
well-written document as committee members and peer
reviewers will not edit writing. If prospectus it is not well
written, reviewers may reject the document and require the
learner to address writing issues before they will review it
again. Remove this page and the sample criterion table below
upon submission for review.
Prospectus Instructions:
1. Read the entire Prospectus Template to understand the
requirements for writing your prospectus. Each section contains
a narrative overview of what should be included in the section
and a table with required criteria for each section. WRITE TO
THE CRITERIA, as they will be used to assess the prospectus
for overall quality and feasibility of your proposed research
study.
2. As you draft each section, delete the narrative instructions
and insert your work related to that section. Use the criterion
table for each section to ensure that you address the
requirements for that particular section. Do not delete/remove
the criterion table as this is used by you and your committee to
evaluate your prospectus.
3. Prior to submitting your prospectus for review by your chair
or methodologist, use the criteria table for each section to
complete a realistic self-evaluation, inserting what you believe
is your score for each listed criterion into the Learner Self-
Evaluation column. This is an exercise in self-evaluation and
critical reflection, and to ensure that you completed all sections,
addressing all required criteria for that section.
4. The scoring for the criteria ranges from a 0-3 as defined
below. Complete a realistic and thoughtful evaluation of your

work. Your chair and methodologist will also use the criterion
tables to evaluate your work.
5. Your Prospectus should be no longer than 6-10 pages when
the tables are deleted.
Score
Assessment
0
Item Not Present
1
Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are
Required: Not all components are present. Large gaps are
present in the components that leave the reader with significant
questions. All items scored at 1 must be addressed by learner
per reviewer comments.
2
Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations.Some Revisions May Be
Required Now or in the Future. Component is present and
adequate. Small gaps are present that leave the reader with
questions. Any item scored at 2 must be addressed by the
learner per the reviewer comments.
3
Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions Required. Component
is addressed clearly and comprehensively. No gaps are present
that leave the reader with questions. No changes required.
Dissertation Prospectus
Introduction
The Introduction section broadly describes the research topic
that will be addressed by the dissertation and why that focus is
worthy of further investigation. The introduction develops the
significance of the study by describing how the study is new or
different from other studies, how it addresses something that is
not already known or has not been studied before, or how it
extends prior research on the topic in some way. Using results,

societal needs, recommendations for further study, or needs
identified in three to five research studies (primarily from the
last 3-5 years), the learner identifies the stated need, or gap, for
the study. The reason it makes sense to focus on the last three
years at this stage is that those sources will still fall within the
five-year time frame when the dissertation has been completed.
Additionally, the most recent studies on the topic need to be a
focal point to show how the research is currently trending.
Learners and committee members should also note the following
information about the dissertation topic.
1. The College of Doctoral Studies recognizes the diversity of
learners in our programs and the varied interests in research
topics for their dissertations in the Social Sciences.
2. Dissertation topics must, at a minimum, be aligned to General
Psychology in the Ph.D. program, Leadership in the Ed.D.
Organizational Leadership program, Adult Instruction in the
Ed.D. Teaching and Learning program, Management in the DBA
program, and Counseling Practice, Counselor Education,
Clinical Supervision or Advocacy/Leadership within the
Counseling field in the Counselor Education Ph.D. program.
3. If there are questions regarding appropriate alignment of a
dissertation topic to the program, the respective program chair
will be the final authority for approval decisions.
4. Specifically, although the College prefers a learner’s topic
align with the program emphasis, this alignment is not
“required.” The College will remain flexible on the learner’s
dissertation topic if it aligns with the degree program in which
the learner is enrolled. The Ph.D. program in General
Psychology does not support clinically-based research.
Criteria
Learner Self-Evaluation Score
(0-3)
Chair Evaluation Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score

(0-3)
Introduction
This section briefly overviews the research focus or problem,
why this study is worth conducting, and how this study will be
completed.
The recommended length for this section is two to three
paragraphs.
1. Dissertation topic is introduced along with why the study is
needed.
2. Provides a summary of results from the prior empirical
research on the topic.
3. Using results, societal needs, recommendations for further
study, or needs identified in three to five research studies
(primarily from the last three years), the learner identifies the
stated need, called a gap.
4. Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a
logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct
sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct
APA format.
NOTE: This Introduction section elaborates on the Topic from
the 10 Strategic Points. This Introduction section provides the
foundation for the Introduction section in Chapter 1 of the
Proposal.
Reviewer Comments:

Background of the Problem
The Background of the Problem section of the prospectus uses
the literature to provide the reader with the identification and
statement of the research gap and problem the study will
address. The first part of the Background to the Problem section
includes a brief discussion demonstrating how the gap has been
established based on what is known, and not known, in the
literature. This should include a clear statement informing the
reader of the gap. The second part of this section presents a
brief historical perspective of when the problem started and how
it has evolved over time.
The gap. GCU defines the gap as a need or opportunity based on
the existing body of recent empirical literature. “Recent”
empirical literature refers to empirical research articles or
dissertations within five years from date of defense. In other
words, the gap for the dissertation is the difference between
what is known in a field of research and what is not yet known,
i.e., what researchers suggest ‘needs’ to be known (that is,
needs to be studied), but which is not yet known.
What is not a gap. A gap is not defined as research on a topic
for which there is no related research in the existing body of
literature (see Grand Canyon University [GCU], 2017). That is,
the absence of literature in and of itself does not constitute a
gap. Furthermore, a personal agenda or an interesting idea is not
sufficient rationale to establish a gap.
How to establish the gap. The gap is created by synthesizing the
literature related to a societal need and/or broad topic. The
stated need is defined from the literature from recent years,
usually within the last 3-5 years. There are a variety of ways to
synthesize the literature to define the gap. Below is a set of
steps that may be used:
First, explore original literature on this “societal” issue or big
problem to determine what researchers have discovered and

what still needs to be discovered. Then compare and contrast
the original literature on this problem and provide an
overarching summary of the current state of literature
surrounding this problem.
Second, while exploring the original literature, identify the
broad topics and problems researched. Explore the evolution of
the research on the problem. How did the focus change? What
findings emerged from these studies?
Third, describe the research from the past 2 to 3 years to
discover what has been discovered, and elaborate to discuss
what still needs to be researched or discovered. Discuss the
trends and themes that emerged. What has been discovered?
What do researchers say still needs to be researched or
discovered?
Fourth, define the proposed topic and problem statement, given
the syntheses of recent studies, trends, limitations, and defined
future research needs.
Once the learner has established a gap from recent empirical
literature, the gap then determines the research problem, which
will be covered in the Problem Statement section of the
prospectus. The research problem establishes how studying this
gap will benefit society and/or professional needs. That is, the
problem statement addresses the gap. The problem should be
discussed as applicable beyond the local setting and contributes
to societal, disciplinary, and/or professional needs. The studies
referenced should help to justify the need for the specific
research study. For further information see GCU (2017) and the
DC Network for resources on finding the gap.
Evolution of problem. The second part of the Background of the
Problem section should include a very short historical
description of when the problem started and how it has evolved
over time. This section will be further elaborated in Chapter 2
of the proposal, the literature review. This section must include
citations from the past 3-5 years of the literature that clearly
present evidence defining the current problem or opportunity
that needs to be further researched.

Criteria
(0-3)
Chair or Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score
(0-3)
Background of the Problem
This section uses the literature to provide the reader with a
definition and statement of the research gap and problem the
study will address. This section further presents a brief
historical perspective of when the problem started and how it
has evolved over time.
The recommended length for this section is two-three
paragraphs.
1. Includes a brief discussion demonstrating how literature has
established the gap and a clear statement informing the reader
of the gap.
2. Discusses how the “need” or “defined gap” has evolved
historically into the current problem or opportunity to be
addressed by the proposed study (citing seminal and/or current
research).
3. ALIGNMENT: The problem statement for the dissertation
will be developed from and justified by the “need” or “defined
gap” that is described in this section and supported by the
empirical research literature published within the past 3-5 years.

APA format.
NOTE: This Background of the Problem section uses
information from the Literature Review in the 10 Strategic
Points. This Background of the Problem section becomes the
Background of the Study in Note, this section develops the
foundation for Chapter 1 in the Proposal. It is then expanded to
develop the comprehensive Background to the Problem section
and Identification of the GAP sections in Chapter 2 (Literature
Review) in the Proposal.
Reviewer Comments:
Theoretical Foundations/Conceptual Framework and Review of
the Literature/Themes
The Theoretical Foundations section of the prospectus provides
a big picture of the theory(ies) or conceptual models that will
provide the foundation for the study and addressing the problem
statement. The preliminary Review of the Literature/Themes
section defines and describes the major topics or themes related
to the dissertation topic. The Theoretical Foundations, as well
as, the problem statement helps to define the Research
Questions.
Theoretical foundations/conceptual framework. This section
names and describes the theory(s) or model(s) that will provide
the Theoretical Foundation/Conceptual Framework for the
research study. Additionally, it describes their relevance to the
proposed study topic and the stated problem that came out of
the Background section. Citations from seminal and/or other
sources are provided to justify the selected theory(s) or

model(s). Seminal sources are ordinarily significantly older
than 5 years (consider, for example, such seminal thinkers as
Piaget or Vygotsky). For a quantitative study, it should provide
the theory or model for each variable as well the rationale for
studying the relationship between the variables. For a
qualitative study, it should discuss how the theories or models
are relevant to understanding the phenomenon.
Review of the literature/themes. This section on the Review of
the Literature/Themes provides a bulleted list of the major
themes you have synthesized from the literature related to the
research topic and problem statement for the dissertation. Each
theme should have a one-two sentence summary that describes
the theme and its relevance to the dissertation research problem.
Include at least two empirical research citations from the past 3-
5 years for each theme. The analysis of the literature review is
fundamental to identifying the gap (GCU, 2017). For example,
list the themes that will be used as organizers for the larger
literature review in Chapter 2. See below:
Theme 1. Write a few sentences here to describe the theme and
include appropriate citations.
Theme 2. Write a few sentences here to describe the theme and
include appropriate citations.
Criteria
(0-3)
Chair or Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score
(0-3)
Theoretical Foundations and/or Conceptual Framework
This section identifies the theory(s) or model(s) that provide the
foundation for the research. This section should present the
theory(s) or models(s) and explain how the problem under
investigation relates to the theory or model. The theory(s) or
models(s) guide the research questions and justify what is being

measured (variables) as well as how those variables are related
(quantitative) or the phenomena being investigated (qualitative).
Review of the Literature/Themes
This section provides a broad, balanced overview of the existing
literature related to the proposed
research topic. It describes the literature in related topic areas
and its relevance to the proposed research topic findings,
providing a short 3-4 sentence description of each theme and
identifies its relevance to the research problem supporting it
with at least two citations from the empirical literature from the
past 3-5 years.
The recommended length for this section is 1 paragraph for
Theoretical Foundations and a bulleted list for Literature
Themes section.
1. Theoretical Foundationssection identifies the theory(s),
model(s) relevant to the variables (quantitative study) or
phenomenon (qualitative study). This section should explain
how the study topic or problem coming out of the “need” or
“defined gap” in the as described in the Background to the
Problem section relates to the theory(s) or model(s) presented in
this section. (One paragraph)
2. Review of the Literature Themes section: This section is a
bulleted list of the major themes or topics related to the
research topic. Each theme or topic should have a one-two
sentence summary.
3. ALIGNMENT: The Theoretical Foundations models and
theories need to be related to and support the problem statement
or study topic. The sections in the Review of the Literature are

topical areas needed to understand the various aspects of the
phenomenon (qualitative) or variables/groups (quantitative)
being studied; to select the design needed to address the
Problem Statement; to select surveys or instruments to collect
information on variables/groups; to define the population and
sample for the study; to describe components or factors that
comprise the phenomenon; to describe key topics related to the
study topic, etc.
APA format.
NOTE: The two parts of this section use information about the
Literature Review and Theoretical Foundations/Conceptual
Framework from the 10 Strategic Points.
This Theoretical Foundations section is expanded upon to
become the Theoretical Foundations section in Chapter 2
(Literature Review). The Theoretical Foundations and the
Literature Review sections are also used to help create the
Advancing Scientific Knowledge/Review of the Literature
section in Chapter 2 (Literature Review).
Reviewer Comments:
Problem Statement
This section of the Prospectus evolves from the Background to
the Problem section above. The Problem Statement section
begins with a declarative statement of the problem under study,
such as “It is not known if and to what degree/extent/if there is
a difference...” (quantitative) or “It is not known how or why
…” (qualitative). Questions to consider when writing the

problem include:
1. What is the need in the world or gap in the literature that this
problem statement addresses?
What is the real issue that is affecting society, students, or
organizations?
At what frequency is the problem occurring?
What is the extent of human suffering that the problem
produces?
Why has the problem received lack of attention in the past?
What does the literature and research say about the problem that
can and should be addressed at this time?
What are the negative outcomes that this issue is addressing?
After the short declarative problem statement, this section then
describes the general population affected by the problem. Then,
the learner needs to address the importance, scope, or
opportunity for solving the problem and/or the importance of
addressing the problem. This section ends with a description of
the unit of analysis.
For qualitative studies, this describes how the phenomena will
be studied. The unit of analysis can be, for example,
individuals, group(s), case unit(s), community, organization(s),
processes, or institution(s). The unit of analysis bounds how the
researcher will study the phenomena.
For quantitative studies, the unit of analysis needs to be defined
in terms of the variable structure (conceptual, operational, and
measurement). At the operational level, the unit of analysis gets
determined and defined by (and must align with) the research
question/problem statement.
· The conceptual level of a variable in a school setting may be,
for example, student achievement. The operational level of the
variable may be student performance in social studies. The
measurement level for the variable may be individual student
scores on the high stakes test, or percentage of overall students
passing the test (at the school level).
Criteria

(0-3)
Chair or Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score
(0-3)
Problem Statement
This section includes the problem statement, the population
affected, and how the study will contribute to solving the
problem.
The recommended length for this section is one paragraph.
1. States the specific problem proposed for research with a clear
declarative statement.
Describes the population of interest affected by the problem.
The general population refers to all individuals that could be
affected by the study problem.
Describes the unit of analysis.
For qualitative studies this describes how the phenomenon will
be studied. This can be individuals, group, or organization
under study.
For quantitative studies, the unit of analysis needs to be defined
in terms of the variable structure (conceptual, operational, and
measurement).
Discusses the importance, scope, or opportunity for the problem
and the importance of addressing the problem.

The problem statement is developed based on the need or gap
defined in the Background to the Study section.
Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical
flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence
structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA
format.
NOTE: This section elaborates on the Problem Statement from
the 10 Strategic Points. This section becomes the foundation for
the Problem Statement section in Chapter 1 and other Chapters
where appropriate in the Proposal.
Reviewer Comments:
Purpose of the Study
The Purpose of the Study provides a reflection of the problem
statement and identifies how the study will be accomplished.
The section begins with a declarative statement, “The purpose
of this study is….” Included in this statement are also the
research design, target population, variables (quantitative) or
phenomena (qualitative) to be studied, and the geographic
location. Further, the section clearly defines the variables,
relationship of variables, or comparison of groups for
quantitative studies. For qualitative studies, this section
describes the nature of the phenomena to be explored.
Criteria
(0-3)
Chair or Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score

(0-3)
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This section reflects what the study is about, connecting the
problem statement, methodology & research design, target
population, variables/phenomena, and geographic location.
1. Begins with one sentence that identifies the research
methodology and design, target population, variables
(quantitative) or phenomena (qualitative) to be studied and
geographic location.
Quantitative Studies: Defines the variables and relationship of
variables.
Qualitative Studies: Describes the nature of the phenomena to
be explored.
format.
NOTE: This section elaborates on information in the Purpose
Statement from the 10 Strategic Points. This section becomes
the foundation for the Purpose of the Study section in Chapter 1
and other Chapters where appropriate in the Proposal.
Reviewer Comments:
Research Questions and/or Hypotheses
This section narrows the focus of the study and specifies the

research questions to address the problem statement. Based on
the research questions, it describes the variables or groups and
their hypothesized relationship for a quantitative study or the
phenomena under investigation for a qualitative study. The
research questions and hypotheses should be derived from, and
are directly aligned with, the problem statement and theoretical
foundation (theory(s) or model(s).
If the study is qualitative, state the research questions the study
will answer, and describe the phenomenon to be studied.
Qualitative studies require a minimum of two research
questions. If the study is quantitative, state the research
questions the study will answer, identify the variables, and state
the hypotheses (predictive statements) using the format
appropriate for the specific design. For quantitative studies, the
research questions align with the purpose statement. Note: GCU
requires a minimum of two research questions for a quantitative
study.
In a paragraph prior to listing the research questions or
hypotheses, include a discussion of the research questions,
relating them to the problem statement. Then, include a leading
phrase to introduce the questions such as: The following
research questions guide this qualitative study:
RQ1:This is an example of how to format a qualitative research
question should align within the text of the manuscript. Indent
.25 inches from the left margin. Text that wraps around to the
next line is indented using the Hanging Indent feature at 0.5”.
This style has been set up in this template and is called “List
RQ.” (It is the same as that in the proposal and dissertation
template v8.x).
RQ2:Add a research question here following the format above.
Additional research questions should follow the same format.
Or, for a quantitative study the research questions are formatted
as below. The following research question and hypotheses guide
this quantitative study:
RQ1:This is an example of how a quantitative research
questions and hypotheses should align within the text of the

manuscript. The style has already been set up and is called “List
RQ.” The preferences for that style are: Indent .25 inches from
the left margin. Text that wraps around to the next line is
indented using the Hanging Indent feature at .5”.
H10:The null hypothesis that aligns to the research question is
listed here. The null hypotheses always precede the alternative
hypothesis.
H1a:The alternative hypothesis that aligns to the research
question and null hypothesis is listed here. Repeat this pattern
for each quantitative research question and associated
hypotheses.
Criteria
(0-3)
Chair Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score
(0-3)
Research Question(s) and/or Hypotheses
· The recommendation is a minimum of two research questions
along with related hypotheses and variables is required for a
quantitative study.
· Also recommended is a minimum of two research questions
along with the phenomenon description is required for a
qualitative study.
· Put the Research Questions in the appropriate Table in
Appendix B based on whether the study is qualitative or
quantitative.
The recommended length for this section is a list of research
questions and associated hypotheses (quantitative)
1. Qualitative Studies: States the research question(s) the study
will answer and describes the phenomenon to be studied.
Quantitative Studies: States the research questions the study
will answer, identifies and describes the variables, and states
the hypotheses (predictive statements) using the format

appropriate for the specific design and statistical analysis.
Alignment: The research questions are based on both the
Problem Statement and Theoretical Foundation model(s) or
theory(s). There should be no research questions that are not
clearly aligned to the Problem Statement.
format.
NOTE: This section elaborates on the information about
Research Questions) & Hypothesis/variables or Phenomena
from the 10 Strategic Points. This section becomes the
foundation for the Research Question(s) and/or Hypotheses
section in Chapter 1 in the Proposal.
Reviewer Comments:
Advancing Scientific Knowledge and Significance of the Study
The Advancing Scientific Knowledge and Significance of the
Study section reiterates the “gap” or “need” in the literature that
was used to define the problem statement and develop the
research questions. Further, it describes how the study will
address the “gap” or “identified need.” The section describes
how the research fits with, or will build on/add to the results of
other studies on the topic and how those results will contribute
to or advance the current literature or body of research.
Although this advancement may be a small step forward in a
line of current research, it must add to the current body of
knowledge and align to the learner’s program of study. The

section also discusses the implications of the potential results
based on the research questions and problem statement,
hypotheses, or the investigated phenomena. Further, it describes
the potential practical applications from the research for the
community of interest. The section identifies the theory(ies) or
model(s) that provide the theoretical foundations or conceptual
frameworks for the study. Finally, it connects the study directly
to the theory and describes how the study will add or extend the
theory or model.
Criteria
(0-3)
Chair Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score
(0-3)
ADVANCING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE and
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This section reiterates the gap or need in the literature and
states how the study will address the gap or need and how the
research will contribute to the literature, practical implications
to the community of interest, and alignment with the program of
study.
The recommended length for this section is one to two
paragraphs, providing a brief synopsis of each criteria listed
below which will be expanded in the proposal.
1. Clearly identifies the “gap” or “need” in the literature that
was used to define the problem statement and develop the
research questions. (citations required)
Describes how the study will address the “gap” or “identified
need” defined in the literature and contribute to /advance the
body of literature. (citations required)

Describes the potential practical applications from the research.
(citations required)
Identifies and connects the theory(ies) or model(s) that provide
the theoretical foundations or conceptual frameworks for the
study. (citations required)
format.
NOTE: This section builds on information about the Literature
review and Theoretical Foundations sections in the 10 Strategic
Points. This section becomes the foundation for the Theoretical
Foundations section in Chapter 2
Reviewer Comments:
Rationale for Methodology
The Rationale for Methodology section clearly justifies the
methodology the researcher plans to use for conducting the
study. It argues how the methodological choice (quantitative or
qualitative) is the best approach to answer the research
questions and address the problem statement. Finally, it
contains citations from textbooks and articles on research
methodology and/or articles on related studies to provide

evidence to support the argument for the selected methodology.
For qualitative designs, this section describes the phenomenon
to be studied. For quantitative designs, this section identifies
and describes the variables, and states the hypotheses
(predictive statements) using the format appropriate for the
specific design. Finally, this section includes a discussion of the
research questions, relating them to the problem statement. This
section should illustrate how the selected methodology is
aligned with the problem statement, providing additional
context for the study.
Note, learners often confuse this section with the research
design for their study. The methodology section focuses on the
key attributes of the methodology (qualitative and quantitative)
cited from research sources, and the reason it is best suited to
answer the research questions. After describing the critical
attributes of the methodology, the learner should then discuss
how those attributes align with the proposed study. Justification
of the methodology requires the learner to go beyond listing the
attributes of the methodology, but to also tell why those
attributes are a best or appropriate fit for their stated problem
and research questions in the study. The discussion must
include why one methodology is well suited to the study and the
other is not.
Criteria
(0-3)
Chair or Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score
(0-3)
Rationale for Methodology
The Rationale for Methodology section clearly justifies the
methodology the researcher plans to use for conducting the
study. It argues how the methodological choice (quantitative or
qualitative) is the best approach to answer the research
questions and address the problem statement. Finally, it

contains citations from textbooks and articles on research
methodology and/or articles on related studies to provide
evidence to support the argument for the selected methodology.
1. Identifies the specific research methodology for the study.
Justifies the methodology to be used for the study by discussing
why it is an appropriate approach for answering the research
question(s) and addressing the problem statement.
Quantitative Studies: Justify in terms of problem statement and
the variables for which data will be collected.
Qualitative Studies: Justify in terms of problem statement and
phenomenon.
Uses citations from seminal (authoritative) sources (textbooks
and/or empirical research literature) to justify the selected
methodology. Note:Introductory or survey research textbooks
(such as Creswell) are not considered seminal sources.
format.
NOTE: This section elaborates on the Methodology and Design
in the 10 Strategic Points.This section becomes the foundation

for the Research Methodology in Chapter 1 of the Proposal and
the basis for developing Chapter 3, Research Methodology.
Reviewer Comments:
Nature of the Research Design for the Study
This section describes the specific research design to answer the
research questions and why that approach to the design of the
study was selected. Here, the learner discusses why the selected
design is the best design to address the problem statement and
research questions as compared to other designs. This section
contains a description of the research sample being studied, as
well as, the process that will be used to collect the data on the
sample. This means that the learner briefly describes the data
collection instruments/sources or materials and how they will be
administered.
The design section succinctly conveys the particular design
research approach to answer the research questions and/or test
the hypotheses. Note, learners often confuse this section with
the research methodology for their study. This section focuses
on the key attributes of the design, which is a subset of the
methodology. Here the learner needs to discuss 3 to 5 key
attributes of the design, cited from research sources. After
describing the critical attributes of the design, the learner
should then discuss how these attributes align with the proposed
study. Justification of the design requires the learner to go
beyond listing the attributes of the design, but to also tell why
those attributes are a best or appropriate fit for their stated
problem and study. In addition, the learner needs to discuss why
other designs (also subsets of the methodology) were not
selected, and why those were not best suited to answering the
research questions and the problem statement.
Criterion Score
(0-3)
Chair or Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score

(0-3)
Nature of the Research Design for the Study
This section describes the specific research design to answer the
research questions and why this approach was selected. Here,
the learner discusses why the selected design is the best design
to address the problem statement and research questions as
compared to other designs. This section contains a description
of the research sample being studied, as well as, the process that
will be used to collect the data on the sample.
The recommended length for this section is two to three
paragraphs and must address each criterion.
1. Identifies and describes the selected design for the study.
Justifies why the selected design addresses the problem
statement and research questions.
Quantitative Studies: Justifies the selected design based on the
appropriateness of the design to address the research questions
and data for each variable.
Qualitative Studies: Justifies the selected design based on
appropriateness of design to address research questions and
study the phenomenon.
Briefly describes the target population and sample for the study.
Identifies the sources and instruments that will be used to
collect data needed to answer the research questions.

Briefly describes data collection procedures to collect data on
the sample.
format.
NOTE: This section also elaborates on the Design portion of the
Methodology and Design section in the 10 Strategic Points. This
section provides the foundation for Nature of the Research
Design for the Study in Chapter 1.
Reviewer Comments:
Research Materials, Instrumentation, OR Sources of Data
This section identifies and describes the types of data that will
be collected, as well as the specific research materials,
instruments, and sources used to collect those data (tests,
questionnaires, interviews, data bases, media, etc.). Use the
“Instrumentation” heading for a quantitative study. Use the
“Sources of Data” heading for qualitative research. Use the
“Research Materials” heading is using materials for experiments
that use materials other than instruments.
Quantitative instruments or research materials. For quantitative
studies, make sure to discuss, in detail, the specific research
materials, instrument(s), or source (such as databases) to collect
data for each variable or group. Discuss how the instrument was
developed and constructed, the validity and reliability of the
instrument, the number of items or questions included in the
survey, the calculation of the scores, and the scale of
measurement of data obtained from the instrument. Learners
must also obtain all appropriate use permissions from
instrument authors. Please note that GCU strongly recommends

against developing or modifying instruments for quantitative
studies, because modifications can change the validation of the
instrument. Permission to make modifications must be obtained
from the assistant dean.
For quantitative studies, distinguish between the validated
instruments and the questions added by the researcher. The
latter have to be justified as (1) data for one or more variables
of interest in the study (included in the analysis), or (2) data
needed for the sample profile (must be relevant to the topic), or
(3) combination of both. Separate appendices required for each
instrument; the validated instruments (or watermarked samples
thereof) have to be accompanied by authors' or vendors'
permission to use.
Information required for quantitative validated instruments:
1. Number and labels of scales (and subscales);
1. Number or items per scale (and subscale);
1. Type of scale / data (e.g., Likert scales produce technically
ordinal data--ONLY SOME have a format that allows for
APPROXIMATION to continuous data--required justification of
approximation, with references);
1. Method of data aggregation (e.g., for continuous scales: sum
vs. mean vs. other mathematical formula).
Learners doing a quantitative study should refer to the
dissertation template for further details.
Qualitative sources of data. For qualitative studies, the learner
often uses data sources other than instruments. Learners will
most likely develop their own interview or focus group guide,
observation checklist, or other protocol when conducting a
qualitative study. Sources of data may also include databases,
journals, participant drawings, questionnaires, surveys,
photographs, documents, artifacts, and media. Learners must
describe in detail the process and information used to develop
the qualitative protocols or instrument, including the research
literature, theory(ies), or expert in the field used to develop and
justify the questions. Additionally, learners must describe how
the validity and reliability of the instrument were established if

using a validated instrument as a source of data for a qualitative
study, and demonstrate trustworthiness for researcher-developed
interview protocols, questionnaires, and observations forms,
which should include an expert panel review (the expert panel
to be identified by the learner to include people knowledgeable
in qualitative methodology and the domain of study). Finally,
learners should field test the interview protocol(s). Field testing
means that the learner should select 2-3 individuals who match
the selection criteria of the target population, but who will not
be in the sample; the information collected during the field test
may not be included in the results of the study. The outcome of
the field test is to edit or tweak the questions in the protocol.
Field tests differ from pilot tests, the latter requires full IRB
approval.
Criterion Score
(0-3)
Chair or Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score
(0-3)
RESEARCH MATERIALS, INSTRUMENTATION, OR
SOURCES OF DATA
This section identifies and describes the types of data that will
be collected, as well as the specific research materials,
instruments, and sources used to collect those data (tests,
surveys, validated instruments, questionnaires, interview
protocols, databases, media, etc.).
paragraphs. Note: this section can be set up as a bulleted list.
Quantitative- Instruments/Research Materials:
Provides a bulleted list of the instrumentation and/or materials
for data collection.
Describes the survey instruments or equipment/materials used
(experimental research), and specifies the type and level of data

collected with each instrument.
Includes citations from original publications by instrument
developers (and subsequent users as appropriate) or related
studies.
Qualitative - Sources of Data:
Describes the structure of each data collection instrument and
data sources (tests, questionnaires, interview protocols,
observations databases, media, etc.).
format.
NOTE: This section elaborates on the Data Collection from the
10 Strategic Points.
This information is summarized high level in Chapter 1 in the
Proposal in the Nature of the Research Design for the Study
section. This section provides the foundation for Research
Materials,Instrumentation (quantitative) or Sources of Data
(qualitative) section in Chapter 3.
Reviewer Comments:Data Collection
This section details the process and procedures used to collect
the data. In this section, learners should describe the step-by-
step procedures used to carry out all the major steps for data
collection for the study in a way that would allow another
researcher to conduct or replicate the study. Note: Learners
often do not develop this section adequately. Start with site
authorization from the organization where data will be
collected, then move to IRB approval. Consider how you will

gain initial contact with the site and participants, how you will
explain the purpose and participation requirements for the
study, how you will get informed consent all the way to actual
data collection. Include specific steps and the sequence for
collecting data for each variable, source of data, or research
material.
Criteria
(0-3)
Chair or Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score
(0-3)
DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT
This section details the data collection process and procedures
so that another researcher could conduct or replicate the study.
It includes authorizations and detailed steps.
The recommended length for this section is a bullet or numbered
list of data collection steps that should not exceed one page.
Quantitative Studies: Lists steps for the actual data collection
that would allow replication of the study by another researcher,
including how each instrument or data source was used, how
and where data were collected, and recorded. Includes a linear
sequence of actions or step-by-step of procedures used to carry
out all the major steps for data collection. Includes a workflow
and corresponding timeline, presenting a logical, sequential,
and transparent protocol for data collection that would allow
another researcher to replicate the study.
Data from different sources may have to be collected in parallel
(e.g., paper-and-pen surveys for teachers, corresponding
students, and their parents AND retrieval of archival data from
the school district). A flow chart is ok—"linear" may not apply
to all situations
Qualitative Studies: Provides detailed description of data
collection process, including all sources of data and methods
used, such as interviews, member checking, observations,

surveys, field tests, and expert panel review. Note: The
collected data must be sufficient in breadth and depth to answer
the research question(s) and interpreted and presented correctly,
by theme, research question, and/or source of data.
Describes the procedures for obtaining participant informed
consent and for protecting the rights and well-being of the study
sample participants.
format.
NOTE:This section elaborates on the Sample and Location and
Data Collection in the 10 Strategic Points. This section provides
the foundation for the Data Collection Procedures section in
Chapter 3 in the Proposal. And it is summarized high level in
Chapter 1 in Nature of the Research Design for the Study in the
Proposal.
Reviewer Comments:
Data Analysis Procedures
This section provides a step-by-step description of the
procedures to be used to conduct the data analysis. The key
elements of this section include the process by which raw data
will be prepared for analysis and then subsequently analyzed.
Criteria

(0-3)
Chair or Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score
(0-3)
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
This section provides detailed steps for the analytic procedures
to be used to conduct data analysis.
paragraphs, can also be presented in bulleted format.
Describes in detail the relevant data collected for each stated
research question and/or each variable within each hypothesis
(if applicable).
Quantitative Studies: "In detail" means scales (and subscales) of
specified instruments AND type of data for each variable of
interest. IMPORTANT: For (quasi) experimental studies,
provide detailed description of all treatment materials per
treatment condition, as part of the description of the
independent variable corresponding to the experimental
manipulation.
What: Describes, in detail, statistical and non-statistical
analysis to be used and procedures used to conduct the data
analysis.
Quantitative Studies: (1) describe data file preparation
(descriptive statistics used to check completeness and accuracy;
for files from different sources, possibly aggregating data to
obtain a common unit of analysis in all files, necessarily
merging files (using the key variable defining the unit of
analysis); (2) computation of statistics for the sample profile;
(3) computation of (subscales and) scales; (4) reliability
analysis for all scales and subscales; (5) computation of

descriptive statistics for all variables of interest in the study
(except those already presented in the sample profile); (6) state
and justify all statistical procedures ("tests") needed to generate
the information to answer all research questions; and (7) state
assumptions checks for all those statistical procedures
(including the tests and / or charts to be computed).
Qualitative Studies: This section begins by identifying and
discussing the specific analysis approach or strategy, followed
by a discussion of coding procedures to be used. Note: coding
procedures may be different for Thematic Analysis, Narrative
Analysis, Phenomenological Analysis, or Grounded Theory
Analysis.
Why: Provides the justification for each of the (statistical and
non-statistical) data analysis procedures used in the study.
Show Steps that Support Evidence
Quantitative Analysis - states the level of statistical
significance for each test as appropriate, and describes tests of
assumptions for each statistical test.
Qualitative Analysis - evidence of qualitative analysis
approach, such as coding and theming process, must be
completely described and included the analysis /interpretation
process. Clear evidence from how codes moved to themes must
be presented.

format.
NOTE: This section elaborates on the Data Analysis from the 10
Strategic Points.This section provides the foundation for Data
Analysis Procedures section in Chapter 3 in the Proposal.
Reviewer Comments:
Ethical Considerations
This section of the prospectus discusses the anticipated ethical
issues surrounding the research including how human subjects
and data will be protected. This section should also reference
how site authorization will be obtained and the necessary IRB
approval(s) required to conduct the research, the subject
recruiting and informed consent processes. Read the criterion
table carefully for required components to be included in this
section.
Criteria
(0-3)
Chair or Score
(0-3)
Reviewer Score
(0-3)
This section discusses the potential ethical issues surrounding
the research, as well as how human subjects and data will be
protected. It identifies how any potential ethical issues will be
addressed.
1. Describes site authorization process, subject recruiting, and

informed consent processes.
2. Describes how the identities of the participants in the study
and data will be protected.
3. Discusses potential ethical concerns that might occur during
the data collection process.
4. ALIGNMENT: Ethical considerations are clearly aligned
with, and relate directly to the specific Data Collection
Procedures. This section also identifies ethical considerations
related to the target population being researched and
organization or location as described in the Purpose Statement
section.
format.
NOTE: This section does not include information from any of
the 10 Strategic Points.
This section provides the foundation for Ethical Considerations
section in Chapter 3 in the Proposal.
Reviewer Comments:

References
Russell, B.H., Wutich, A.Y., & Ryan, G.W. (2017). Analyzing
qualitative data: Systematic approaches (second edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Grand Canyon University (Ed.). (2017). GCU doctoral research:
Writing the research prospectus. Retrieved from:
http://lc.gcumedia.com/res880/gcu-doctoral-research-writing-
the-research-prospectus/v1.1/
Appendix A
The 10 Strategic Points for the Prospectus, Proposal, and
Dissertation
Introduction
In the Prospectus, Proposal and Dissertation there are 10 key or
strategic points that need to be clear, simple, correct, and
aligned to ensure the research is doable, valuable, and credible.
These points, which provide a guide or vision for the research,
are present in almost any research. They are defined within this
10 Strategic Points document. You should include an updated,
aligned 10 Strategic Points in this appendix for your chair and
methodologist to reference. Below are the instructions for
constructing a 10 Strategic Points for your reference.
The 10 Strategic Points
The 10 strategy points emerge from researching literature on a
topic that is based on, or aligned with, the defined need in the
literature as well as the learner’s personal passion, future career
purpose, and degree area. The 10 Strategic Points document
includes the following 10 key or strategic points that define the
research focus and approach:
1. Topic—Provides a board research topic area/title.
1. Literature review—Lists primary points for four sections in
the Literature Review: (a) Background of the problem/gap and
the need for the study based on citations from the literature; (b)
Theoretical foundations (models and theories to be foundation
for study); (c) Review of literature topics with key theme for
each one; (d) Summary.

1. Problem statement—Describes the problem to address
through the study based on defined needs or gaps from the
literature.
1. Sample and location—Identifies sample, needed sample size,
and location (study phenomena with small numbers and
variables/groups with large numbers).
1. Research questions—Provides research questions to collect
data to address the problem statement.
1. Hypothesis/variables or Phenomena—Provides hypotheses
with variables for each research question (quantitative) or
describes the phenomena to be better understood (qualitative).
1. Methodology and design—Describes the selected
methodology and specific research design to address problem
statement and research questions.
1. Purpose statement—Provides a one-sentence statement of
purpose including the problem statement, methodology, design,
population sample, and location.
1. Data collection—Describes primary instruments and sources
of data to answer research questions.
1. Data analysis—Describes the specific data analysis
approaches to be used to address research questions.
The Process for Defining the Ten Strategic Points
The order of the 10 strategic points listed above reflects the
order in which the work is done by the learner. The first five
strategic points focus primarily on defining the focus for the
research based on a clearly defined need or gap from the
literature as well as the learner’s passion, purpose and specialty
area focus. First, a learner identifies a broad topic area to
research for their dissertation based on a clearly defined need or
gap from the literature—that they are interested in because it is
based on their personal passion, future career purpose, and
degree being pursued. Second, the learner completes a review of
the literature to define the need or gap they will address, the
theories and models that will provide a foundation for their
research, related topics that are needed to demonstrate their
expertise in their field, and define the key strategic points

behind their proposed research. Third, the learner develops a
clear, simple, one- sentence problem statement that defines the
problem, or gap, that will be addressed by the research. Fourth,
the learner identifies some potential population samples they
would have access to in order to collect the data for the study,
considering the fact the quantitative study sample sizes need to
be much larger than those for qualitative studies. Fifth, the
learner develops a set of research questions that will define the
data needed to address the problem statement.
Based on the above five strategic points the learner now defines
the key aspects of the research methodology through the last
five strategic points. Sixth, the learner either describes the
phenomena to be studied (if it is a qualitative study), or
develops a set of hypotheses (matching the research questions)
that defines the variables that will be the focus for the research
(if it is a quantitative study). Seventh, the learner determines if
the study will be qualitative, quantitative based on (a) the best
approach for the research, (b) the size of the sample they can
get permission to access, (c) availability of data collection tools
and sources, and (d) time and resources to conduct the study.
Additionally, they select the best design approach considering
these same factors. Eighth, the learner develops a purpose
statement by integrating the problem statement, methodology,
design, sample, and location. Ninth, the learner identifies the
data they will need to collect to address the research questions
or hypotheses and how they will collect the data (e.g.,
interviews, focus groups, observations, tested and validated
instruments or surveys, data bases, public media, etc.) Tenth,
they identify the appropriate data analysis, based on their
design, to be used to answer their research questions and
address their problem statement.
Criteria for Evaluating the Ten Strategic Points: Clear, Simple,
Correct and Aligned
When developing research, it is important to define the 10
strategic points so they are simple,clear, and correct in order to
ensure anyone who reviews them will easily understand them. It

is important to align all of the 10 strategic points to ensure it
will be possible to conduct and complete the research. The
problem statement must come out of the literature. The research
questions must collect the data needed to answer the problem
statement. The methodology and design must be appropriate for
the problem statement and research questions. The data
collection and data analysis must provide the information to
answer the research questions (qualitative) or test the
hypotheses (quantitative). Developing the 10 Strategic Points as
a two to three-page document can help ensure clarity,
simplicity, correctness, and alignment of each of these ten key
or strategic points in the prospectus, proposal, and dissertation.
Developing these 10 strategic points on a two to three-page
document also provides an easy-to-use use template to ensure
the 10 strategic points are always worded the same throughout
the prospectus, proposal, and dissertation.
Appendix B
Variables/Groups, Phenomena, and Data Analysis
Instructions: Complete the applicable table to assist with your
research design. Use Table 1 for quantitative studies. Use Table
2 for qualitative studies. This table is intended to define how
you will collect and analyze the specific data for each research
question (qualitative) and each variable (quantitative). Add
additional rows to your table if needed.
Table 1
Quantitative Studies
Research Questions:
State the research Questions
Hypotheses:
State the hypotheses to match each Research question
List of Variables/Groups to Collect Data For:
Independent and Dependent Variable(s)
Instrument(s)
To collect data for each variable

Analysis Plan
Data analysis approach to (1) describe data and (2) test the
hypothesis
1.
2.
3.
Table 2
Qualitative Studies
Research Questions: State the Research Questions that will be
used to collect data to understand the Phenomenon being
studied
Phenomenon:
Describe the overall phenomenon being studied by the research
questions
Sources of Data:
Identify the specific approach (e.g., interview, observation,
artifacts, documents, database, etc.) to be used to collect the
data to answer each Research Question
Analysis Plan: Describe the specific approach that will be used
to (1) summarize the data and (2) analyze the data.
1.

2.
3.
Prospectus Template v.8.2 05.09.19

Closing the Gap for
Women.pdf
4 | THE NEW REPUBLIC
ONE DAY IN 2012, Aileen Rizo, a math consultant in
the Fresno, California, education system, overheard
a recently hired male colleague talking about his
salary. Rizo was “floored,” she said, to learn that
although she had the same job title as he did, was
better educated, and had more experience, he
was paid more. After asking around, Rizo learned
that this was no coincidence: Several of her male
colleagues were earning significantly more than
her as well.
“I felt like I was part of a picture and someone cut
me out of the picture,” she said, describing what it
was like to realize she was being paid so much less.
“It was almost surreal.”
Still, Rizo figured it was a mix-up that could be
remedied. When she complained to Human Res-
ources, though, she was told that the county had relied
on her contract with her previous employer— she’d
been a schoolteacher in Arizona—to set her pay. “I
thought it was being used to confirm my employment

and years of experience,” she said. “I didn’t know
they were using the number for my salary.” When the
county refused to change her pay, Rizo sued, saying
the policy discriminated against women. In April
2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ruled against her, saying that companies could use
Closing the Wage Gap for Women
The case against employers asking what you made at your last
job
BY BRYCE COVERT
ILLUST R AT IO NS BY ALEX NABAU M
U.S. & THE WORLD
JULY/AUGUST 2018 | 5
prior salary to determine wages as long as it “was
reasonable and effectuated a business policy.”
There is nothing new about using previous salary
information to set pay. “That’s been around probably
as long as the job interview,” said Deborah Vagins,
a senior vice president at the American Association
of University Women. In a survey earlier this year,
80 percent of hiring managers and recruiters said
they relied on past salary to come up with an offer.
It might seem like a neutral practice, but it can per-
petuate the inequities that mean women and people
of color are paid less, on average, than white men.
Even women fresh out of college make less than
their male peers in their first jobs. If future pay is

based on previous earnings, then the original sin of
an initial hire taints a woman’s entire working life.
“If this disparity can begin from the moment you
go to your first job, and it follows you throughout
your career, it will never be rectified, and the wage
gap itself will never be rectified,” the District of
Columbia’s Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton,
a leading advocate to end the practice, told me.
Rizo wasn’t the first woman to challenge salary-
history policies in court. In 2000, 37 female employ-
ees at Boeing’s Puget Sound headquarters filed a class
action lawsuit against the company, alleging that its
use of pay history to determine their salaries was
among the factors that stopped them from advancing
within the company. (Boeing settled the suit and
agreed to use new methods to determine starting sal-
aries.) Within the last few years, the issue has made its
way into legislatures. In 2016, Massachusetts became
the first state to forbid employers from requesting
salary histories before they make an official job offer.
Since then, Connecticut, Delaware, Oregon, Vermont,
and Rizo’s home state of California have all passed
similar laws, while versions have been introduced in
Maine, New York, and Washington, D.C. New York
City and Salt Lake City have passed their own bills.
Major corporations have joined in: Amazon, Amer-
ican Express, Bank of America, Facebook, Google,
Starbucks, and Wells Fargo have all announced that
they will stop using prior pay to set compensation.
IT HAS BEEN illegal to pay women less than men
since 1963. So are salary-history statutes and new
hiring practices a solution to a problem that has
already been solved? Far from it. Women who work
full time still make, on average, 80 percent of what

men make, and women of color make even less. It
often falls to them to fix the gap by driving a harder
bargain with their bosses and, if that fails, to sue
employers if they aren’t paid fairly. Lawsuits take
time and cost money, however, and women often
lose. Salary-history bans, on the other hand, not
only give them more power in a negotiation, they
place the responsibility for ensuring fair pay where
it belongs: not on women and people of color, but
on the employers who perpetuate inequality.
This approach hasn’t always been successful. Illi-
nois’s governor, Bruce Rauner, last summer vetoed
a salary-history ban passed by the state legislature.
In Philadelphia, the first city to pass a salary-history
ban, a federal judge struck the law down because he
said it violated employers’ First Amendment rights.
Federal solutions, including proposed bills from
Representative Norton, which she introduced in
2016 and again in 2017, and the oft-revisited Pay-
check Fairness Act, have gone nowhere in Congress.
Critics, including commentators and academics,
draw a parallel between salary-history bans and the
shortcomings of laws that prevent employers from
asking about criminal histories. Studies have shown
that in places that have banned criminal history
questions, employers may simply assume that all
black men have records and end up offering them
fewer jobs as a result. The concern is that companies
will likewise undercut women in salary negotiations
based on the assumption that they all earn low pay.
One study found that women who refused to disclose
their salary histories during the hiring process did
indeed get lower offers than those who did.

But that study looked at a scenario where there was
no ban in place. A recent field experiment found that
employers who couldn’t see salary histories actually
did more individualized research into candidates, and
candidates were better able to bargain for higher start-
ing salaries. This suggests that the value of preventing
employers from asking about salary history extends
beyond women and people of color. All workers are
placed at a disadvantage when an employer knows
what they are already willing to work for—in other
words, how low they’ll go. Employers “can drive
the [salary] conversation down,” said Hannah Riley
Bowles, an expert in how gender influences pay ne-
gotiations at the Harvard Kennedy School.
The debate may be ongoing, but Rizo has won her
argument. In April, the Ninth Circuit reversed its earlier
decision. “Women are told they are not worth as much
as men,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote. “Allowing
prior salary to justify a wage differential perpetuates
Number of states
with no equal pay
protections
2 (Mississippi, Alabama)
Number that have
passed salary-history
bans:
6 (California,
Connecticut, Delaware,
Massachusetts, Oregon,
Vermont)

Change in the amount
of money candidates
were able to get in
salary negotiations:
+9 percent
For every dollar a white
man makes, women
make:
87 cents (Asian)
79 cents (white)
63 cents (black)
54 cents (Hispanic)
Source: AAUW; Georgetown and
NYU Stern
The laws place the responsibility for ensuring fair
pay where it belongs: not on women and people of
color, but on employers who perpetuate inequality.
6 | THE NEW REPUBLIC
ROYALIST MANIA TRANSCENDS traditional political
divisions in the United States. Liberals, who decry
entrenched privilege at home, seem strangely OK
with a British aristocracy that conveys titles and
estates through bloodlines. Fox News talking heads,
who denounce coastal “elites” and the Ivy League,
nonetheless carried breathless live coverage of Prince
Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding in May. A 2015
YouGov poll found that Americans, Republicans and
Democrats alike, held more favorable opinions of the
British queen, Prince William, Prince Harry, and

the Duchess of Cambridge than of their own politi-
cians. Even the most popular American politician,
Barack Obama, had a favorability that fell below their
net rating by a considerable 34 points.
Donald Trump, with his penchant for Versailles-
style gilded furniture and his predilection for stamp-
ing the family crest on his properties, seems to have
a particularly bad case of this national affliction. In
April 2017, The Times of London reported that White
House staffers had demanded the full Cinderella
treatment for his planned state visit: a gold- plated
carriage ride to meet the queen at Buckingham
Palace. (Alas, Trump will have to make do with a
more subdued meeting with Theresa May in July,
and British officials have hedged on committing to
a royal audience, concerned about the possibility
of mass protests.)
Very little seems to unite Americans these days—
except, apparently, their enjoyment in fawning over
the rulers the Founding Fathers waged war to over-
throw. Once, the United States claimed egalitarian-
ism as a central ideal. What happened?
It’s not difficult to see how nostalgia for a system
that finds dignity in stasis could take hold. American
social mobility, depending on which economist you
favor, has either been in steady decline for decades
or has at the very least failed to keep up with widen-
ing inequality. Today, those born without privilege
face daunting barriers to wealth and advancement.
And even in the privileged upper class, the scale of
competition—plummeting acceptance rates at elite
universities, for example—makes it hard to live up to

the assumption, hammered into American children
from an early age, that they are “special.” Sleep depri
vation, which affected 11 percent of Americans in the
1940s, is now a “public health epidemic,” according to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The
percentage of people who “worry a lot,” Pew Research
analysis shows, has been rising for all income levels
since 2003. And prescriptions for both stimulant
medications, to keep up in an increasingly chaotic
and distracting world, and sedatives, to unwind when
it overwhelms, have jumped accordingly.
“This permanent struggle—between the instincts
inspired by equality and the means it supplies to
satisfy them—harasses and wearies men’s minds,”
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of the United States in
the early 1800s. Americans may believe in equality
and meritocracy, but if their obsession with the
royal family is any guide, they yearn for a time when
fulfillment wasn’t quite so much work.
THE WESTERN WORLD has long seen upticks in
nostalgia and reactionism when people are frustrated,
this message, entrenching in salary systems an obvious
means of discrimination.” When Jerry Brown signed
California’s Fair Pay Act into law in 2015, Rizo and
her nine-month-old daughter were there with him.
“Sometimes I think things are too hard and never going
to change, but it did,” she said. Today, Rizo is running
Americans may believe in meritocracy, but if their
obsession with the royals is any guide, they yearn
for a time when fulfillment wasn’t so much work.
U.S. & THE WORLD

for the state legislature—against an incumbent who
has voted against bills that would have forbidden em-
ployers from asking questions about salary history. a
Bryce Covert is a contributing writer at The New
York Times and The Nation.
Wet, Hot, Aristocratic Summer
Donald Trump, Meghan Markle, and America’s enduring
obsession with the British royals
BY HEATHER SOUVAINE HORN
Copyright of New Republic is the property of TNR II, LLC and
its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
Equal Pay
Protections.pdf
Student Loan Repayment W ind Energy Production
Many Americans have outstanding undergraduate stu-dent loans
with interest rates of 7 percent or higher;
however, those who took out loans during the 2013-2014
school year pay a rate of 3.86 percent under the Biparti-
san Student Loan Certainty Act, passed by Congress in
2013.

On March 18, 2014, Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA-
D) and Representative Joe Courtney (CT-D) introduced the
Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. The
legislation would allow those with college loan debt to refi-
nance at the lower interest rates. The rates would be slightly
higher for graduate student loans. The cost would be paid
for by requiring millionaires to pay at least a 30 percent ef-
fective Federal tax rate.
A similar bill came to the floor in the last Congress, but
fell short of breaking a Republican filibuster.
“Since last year, nearly a million more borrowers have
fallen behind on their student loan payments,” said Sena
tor Warren. “The Bank on Students Emergency Loan Re
financing Act would give much-needed to relief to millions
of borrowers, help boost our economy, and strengthen
America’s middle class.”
On March 25, Senator Warren offered the bill on the
Senate floor as an amendment to the budget resolution, but
senators rejected it by a vote of 46 to 53.
Senate Budget C om m ittee C hair Mike Enzi (WY-
R) objected to the mechanism for considering the bill,
saying, “Addressing college costs and the burden of
high stu d en t debt loans has to be done, b ut it can’t be
done on a budget bill. You can’t have policy on a b u d
get resolution.”
Instead, the Senate approved, by voice vote, an amend-
ment introduced by Senator Richard Burr (NC-R) that
would consolidate various Federal student loan programs
and give students a choice of accepting a payment plan over
10 years or repaying loans based on income. Senator Burr
explained that, with his legislation, “students will know,

prior to entering college, based on the amount that they
borrow, what options will be available to them once they
graduate from college.”
Senator Mark Warner (VA-D), a cosponsor of the
amendment, said, “It’s time to replace our complicated ar
ray of loans, subsidies, deferments, and forbearances with
streamlined, improved repayment options where graduates
repay what they borrow based on what they earn.”
For more background and legislative history, see the
November 2009 issue of Congressional Digest on “Federal
Student Loans.” ■
Federal subsidies for wind production began under the
Administration of President Jimmy Carter with passage
of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act and the Energy
Tax Act. When these subsidies failed to make the industry
competitive, Congress, in 1992, created the Production Tax
Credit (PTC) to give it a boost. The PTC gives wind en-
ergy producers a tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour of
electricity generated.
Although originally intended as a temporary measure,
the PTC has been continually extended by Congress un-
der pressure from the wind industry and renewable energy
advocates.
A setback occurred on January 29, 2015, however, when
the Senate defeated, 47 to 51, an amendment by Senator
Heidi Heitkamp (ND-D) to extend the PTC for another
five years. The proposal was considered as an amendment
to a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which was
passed but later vetoed by the President.
Following the vote, Senator Heitkamp stated:

There are a lot of Senators that talk about support-
ing an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but clearly
many don’t actually mean it. As we continue to cal
culate a path forward for our energy infrastructure,
and for fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal... we sim-
ply cannot leave wind power out of the equation.
Opponents argued that after more than 20 years of
being subsidized by taxpayers, it was time for the wind in-
dustry to stand on its own.
Meanwhile, in his 2015 budget proposal, President
Obama called for a permanent extension of the PTC as well
as the solar energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC). While the
President’s proposals are unlikely to become law, they may
serve as a high starting point for negotiating an extension
of subsidies for renewal energy.
For more background, see the February 2013 issue of
Congressional Digest on “Wind Energy.” ■
Equal Pay Protections
The Equal Pay Act of 1964 made it illegal to pay em-ployees
different wages based on their sex. In addi-
tion, the National Labor Relations Act says that employ-
ers cannot prevent employees from discussing wages and
other issues. And in 2009, Congress passed, and President
Obama signed, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which
14 C o n g re s s io n a l D ig e s t ■ w w w .C o n g re s s io n
a lD ig e s t.c o m ■ M a y 2 0 1 5
http://www.CongressionalDigest.com

amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act to state that the 180-
day statute o f lim itations for fding an equal pay lawsuit
resets w ith each new paycheck affected by that discrim i-
natory action.
Nevertheless, the gap between men’s and women’s wages
has persisted. Although the wage gap varies by State and
race, women are nationally estimated to earn 78 cents for
every dollar earned by a man. (That figure was about 59
cents when the Equal Pay Act became law.) As a result, pro-
posals have been put forth to reaffirm and better enforce
laws that are already on the books.
T he Senate budget resolution passed in M arch 2015
included an am endm ent clarifying that employees should
n o t be penalized for discussing wages. D uring the same
debate, senators rejected a proposal offered by Senator Bar-
bara M ikulski (M D -D ) requiring stronger penalties for
unequal pay.
O n March 26, Senator Deb Fischer (NE-R) introduced
S. 875, to make it illegal for employers to retaliate against
employees who discuss or ask about comparative compen-
sation. T he bill would also prohibit pay discrim ination
unless the differential could be justified by seniority, merit,
or some other factor.
O ne year ago, President O bam a took two Executive
actions aimed at narrowing the wage gap:
• An Executive order prohibiting Federal contractors
from retaliating against workers who discuss their sala-
ries with one another.
• A m em orandum requesting new rules to require Fed

eral contractors to submit data on employee compen-
sation by race and gender.
T he um brella bill currently supported by equal pay
advocates is S. 862, the Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored
by Senator M ikulski. T he measure is designed to help
those who believe th at they have experienced pay dis-
crim ination by m aking wages m ore transparent, requir-
ing th at employers prove th at wage discrepancies are tied
to legitim ate business qualifications, and p ro h ib itin g
companies from taking retaliatory action against employ-
ees who raise concerns.
O pponents o f the bill argue that the statistic that
women earn 78 cents for every dollar a man earns is mis-
leading and misapplied because it is based on the wrong
comparisons. They point to studies showing that when the
job itself, experience, and hours o f work are taken into ac-
count, women make about the same am ount as men. They
also say that there are already sufficient laws under which
women can seek justice for wage discrimination.
For more background, see the May 2014 issue o f Con-
gressional Digest on “Women’s Pay Equity.” ■
Dietary Guidelines
In February, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Com m it tee
subm itted its Scientific Report to the Secretary of
Health and H um an Services and the Secretary o f Agricul-
ture. The committee was charged with examining where
sufficient “new scientific evidence is likely to be available
that may inform revisions to the current guidance or sug-
gest new guidance.”
Based on their research, the committee concluded that

... a healthy dietary pattern is higher in vegetables,
fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood,
legumes, and nuts; moderate in alcohol (among
adults); lower in red and processed meat; and low in
sugar sweetened foods and drinks and refined grains.
The report continued:
Consistent evidence indicates that, in general, a
dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods
... and lower in animal-based foods is more health
promoting and is associated with a lesser environ-
mental impact (G H G [greenhouse gas] emissions
and energy, land, and water use) than is the current
average U.S. diet.
T he emphasis on lower red and processed meat con-
sum ption provoked a strong negative response from the
meat industry, and a request that the public com m ent pe-
riod for the report be extended from 45 days to 120 days.
T he deadline has since been moved to May 8.
N orth American Meat Institute (NAMI) Vice Presi-
dent o f Scientific Affairs Betsy Booren argued that meat and
poultry products are an im portant com ponent o f a health-
ful American diet. NAM I has announced a petition drive
opposing the recommendations.
Meanwhile, Senate Agriculture C om m itte Chair Pat
Roberts (KS-R) has said that he supports the industry po-
sition and that the recommendations “make a certain seg
m ent of agriculture a target.”
Concerns on both sides were voiced at a House Agri-
culture Appropriations Subcommittee on March 17.

T he Agriculture and Health and H um an Services D e-
partments will review the report, along with public com-
ments and input from other agencies, before beginning the
process o f updating the guidelines. ■
C o n g r e s s io n a l D ig e st ■ w w w .C o n g re s s io n a
lD ig e s t.c o m ■ M a y 2 0 1 5 15
http://www.CongressionalDigest.com
Copyright of Congressional Digest is the property of
Congressional Digest and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
Gender Equality in
Academia, Business, Technology and Health Care.pdf
International Journal of Caring Sciences September-
December 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 3| Page 1224
www.internationaljournalofcaringsciences.org
Original Article
Gender Equality in Academia, Business, Technology and Health
Care: A
WomEnPower view in Cyprus

Christiana Kouta, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Nursing, Cyprus University
of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus
Antigoni Parmaxi, PhD
Research Associate, Cyprus Interaction Lab, Department of
Multimedia and Graphic Arts, Cyprus
University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus
Irene Smoleski, MSc
Research Assistant, Department of Nursing, Cyprus University
of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus
Correspondence: Christiana Kouta, Associate Professor,
Department of Nursing, Cyprus University of
Technology, 15 Vragadinou str, 3041, Limassol, Cyprus E-
mail: [email protected]
Abstract
The aim of this article is to present the findings of a qualitative
study aiming at understanding women’s
perceptions with regard to a) gender equality at workplace; b)
experiences at workplace with regard to gender;
c) gender wage gap; d) use of technology for addressing issues
of inequality and e) suggestions for the
development of an e-mentoring community platform.
This study sketches the current situation of gender equality in
the fields of academia, business, technology and
health care, and provides deep understanding of the difficulties
that women with different levels of experience
and expertise encounter in their workplace as well as how
technology could help them overcome these issues.

Data collected demonstrate a variety of challenges faced by
women in workplace as well as the need for role
models that will allow young women to overcome the
stereotypical woman profile as excluded from economic,
political and professional life.
Key words: Gender, technology, discrimination, empowerment,
perceptions, qualitative
Introduction
Gender inequality can be defined as the lack of
“discrimination in relation to opportunities,
allocation of resources or benefits and access to
services for women or men” (Elwer et al., 2012,
p.1). In all EU Member States, female
employment rates are lower than those for males.
When employment is measured in full-time
equivalent, the picture is even worse (OECD,
2012).
Despite the efforts made for shrinking the gap
between men and women, the
underrepresentation of women in higher
positions still exists. Across the European
economy women earn on average 16.4% less
than men, whilst in USA working women earn
77 cents for every dollar earned by men (EU
Equality Challenge Unit, 2014; Smith, 2014;
Bryant et al., 2015). Neyer et al. (2013b)
conceptualize gender equality beyond ‘‘sameness
of distribution’’, providing three dimensions of
gender inequality related to employment,
economic resources and the division of

housework and family care. Gender equality is
achieved when one is able to access and enjoy
the same resources, opportunities and rewards
regardless their gender (Workplace, Gender
Equality Agency, Australian Government, 2013).
This is a complex matter, involving economical,
demographic and behavioral factors that may
contribute to increase gender-based gaps in the
labor market (ILO, 2012). The newly adopted
UN agenda for 2030 highlights the importance of
women’s empowerment in employment, salaries
and working environment as a basic human right
(UN news center, 2015).
Research studies demonstrated that women suffer
from low rates of participation in the workforce,
decision making and unequal value of their work
(Monroe, et al. 2008; Loscocco & Bird, 2012;
Blackburn, Jarman, & Racko, 2015). Yet,
missing women from professional careers affects
both the workforce, as it misses women’s
perspective and expertise; and women
themselves. Further, most technology is designed
by men and one need to consider that technology
then reflects those who make it (IGNITE, 2014).
Despite the emphasis given in high level political

decisions for encouraging women to reach
equality, researchers and practitioners often lack
understanding of women’s perspective with
regard to gender equality and value of their work.
This paper aims at portraying the current
situation in gender inequality by taking a
snapshot on the way women experience and
ascribe meaning to it in the fields of academia,
business, technology and health care. The paper
presents a qualitative study that brought together
women from different areas of work with
different levels of experience to voice their views
regarding to the status of women in their work
area, obstacles that they encounter as well as how
they perceive technology as a means for
overcoming obstacles in their professional
development. Authors provide an overview of
the state-of-the art of gender equality in the
workforce; methodology follows. The article
concludes by linking the empirical results to the
existing literature.
Gender equality in the workforce
The under-representation of women in high-
ranked positions is a pattern that occurs across
several occupations across the globe including
health care, academia, entrepreneurship,
business; Science, Technology, Engineering and
Math (STEM). Although the number of women
in authority positions increases, there is still a
continuation of discrimination and women
experience with regard to downplaying (Monroe
et al. 2008). Loscocco and Bird (2012)
demonstrated that women are more likely to
work in part time works because of childcare, so

there is a limited chance to have a director
position due to reduced work’s hours. According
to Kogut et al. (2014) this is the case in Norway,
where, one woman to seven men holds a director
position and a percentage of 20% retain
structural equality. As indicated by Beede et al.
(2011, p. 1), “although women fill close to half
of all jobs in the U.S. economy, they hold less
than 25 percent of STEM jobs. This has been the
case throughout the past decade, even as college
educated women have increased their share of
the overall workforce”. Similarly, recent research
evidence points systemic gender discrimination
and inequality in health workforce. Health care
professionals’ work is traditionally associated to
femininity as women constitute the majority of
health care workers (WHO, 2002; 2008), yet
women’s salary in such positions is devaluated in
the labor market (Tijdens, De Vries & Steinmetz,
2013). As pointed out by Newman (2014) more
attention needs to be paid by governance and
human resource for health (HRH) leaders on
understanding inequality in the health care
domain. Newman (2014) provides a number of
specific actions to be carried out which include a
unified conceptual framework for gender
inequality in the health workforce, research
guidance and improvement of HRH policies and
practices.
Women’s’ representation in the workforce is
decisive to a country’s social, economic and
innovation competitiveness. Higher capacity
innovation, financial and political growths are
amongst the benefits reported for drawing

policies that promote equal opportunities. It is a
rather constricted view to believe that increase of
women’s participation in workforce will reveal
novel economic and political growth. However,
encouraging and supporting women in the
organizational agenda will allow for a different
perspective to be heard in social, political and
economic discussions.
Womenpower platform
In an attempt to give women a voice in the arena
of workplace, Womenpower (WE-ME) was
developed. Womenpower is a community
platform aiming to connect different generations
of women for addressing issues related to women
equality in workplace. It embarks to assist young
women to receive support and solidarity from
women with expertise in their area. Ultimately,
through Womenpower a network of women will
be developed that will enable women to join
forces for achieving their goals.
For the development of Womenpower platform a
user-centered design (UCD) approach was
followed which aspired to contribute towards a
user-friendly system that will encourage young
women to receive support for breaking the
unseen barriers in their professional
development, and eventually reach higher levels
in the corporate ladder. UCD is a framework for
hardware and software development that ensures
maximum involvement of key players (Norman

& Draper, 1986). Thus, users will be an integral
part of any software or hardware development.
For the development of Womenpower platform
the research engaged in state-of-the-art-research
in the area of gender equality in academia,
business, technology and health care. Data from
research manuscripts formed an interview
protocol that was used for elucidating
information from women in lower and higher
ranks in academia, health care, technology and
business throughout three focus groups that were
held (Chen et al., 2013; Elwer et al., 2012; Ding
et el., 2006) These data enabled the research
team to depict the current situation in academia,
business and health care as well as to elucidate
different views with regard to the use of
technology for mentoring and support.
Mentoring provides opportunities for women for
professional development as well as personal
achievements (Mentoring Women’s Network,
2015). Moreover, building on women’s views, a
working prototype of the platform was developed
that enabled users to provide feedback on how
the e-mentoring platform would work (Parmaxi
& Vasiliou, 2015).
Methodology
Study Design

To gain an in-depth understanding of
participants’ views of the role of women in the
workplace a qualitative methodology was
employed.
Sampling
Three focus groups were implemented. The focus
groups involved both women in senior and junior
positions in the areas of academia, business and
health care. Three focus groups took place, two
with junior participants (focus group 1, n=10;
focus group 2, n=6) and one with senior
participants (focus group 3, n= 8). The aim was
for all four workplaces (health care, academia,
business and technology) to be represented in
both senior and junior participants. A
convenience sample was used. Participants were
recruited though researchers’ personal and
professional contacts with key people in these
fields. Researchers contacted the interviews
though did not know the participants personally
and no conflicting interest or relation existed.
Participants’ ages and career stage varied among
the groups. The inclusion criteria were the
participants to be females, from the fields of
business, health care, academia and technology.
In addition for seniors to have a managerial,
decision making position for more than 5 years.
Moreover, for the junior participants other
criteria were to enter the profession the past 5
years and not to have a managerial or an
authority position.

Tool
A focus group guide was designed based on the
literature review (Ritchie, 2013). The following
thematic areas were revealed: a) gender equality
at workplace; b) experiences at workplace with
regard to gender; c) gender wage gap; d) use of
technology for addressing issues of inequality
and e) suggestions for the development of an e-
mentoring community platform.
Data Collection
The focus groups were conducted in three
different dates in agreement with participants.
All authors facilitated the focus group
discussion; two authors participated in each
discussion. Each focus group lasted
approximately 60-80 minutes. The facilitators
followed the focus group guide with the thematic
areas mentioned above. Discussion was recorded
with the permission of the participants.
Data Analysis
Thematic analysis was performed in order to
extract key themes related to the areas mentioned
earlier. Although thematic analysis is generally
understood as an analytic technique used in the
context of different qualitative methodological
approaches e.g. grounded theory,
phenomenology etc., it can also be used
independently as a flexible method of analyzing
qualitative data guiding the search for themes or
patterns within the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Further, this kind of research involves that the
research team studies the data in their natural
settings in order to interpret the results and
ascribe meaning to them to make sense (Denzin
& Lincoln 2005, 2009). The analysis was based
on six thematic analysis steps: Familiarizing
researcher with data, generating codes, searching
for themes and reviewing themes, defining
themes and produce the report (Braun & Clarke,
2006). The recorded focus groups were
transcribed verbatim by the research team. To
guide the systematic analysis the topics guiding
the interviews were used thematic categories.
Data were repeatedly read and no other
categories were developed.
All participants were informed about the research
study in person verbally and in writing. Each
participant signed a consent form. It was also
explained that participants had the right to
withdraw at any time of the study. During the
focus groups all principles of Belmont report
were followed and applied. The principles of
confidentiality, anonymity and personal data
were also taken in consideration.

Results
Data collected indicated similarities as well as
discrepancies between women in different areas
and different years of expertise. Figure 1
provides an overview of the stances voiced by
participants in the areas of gender equality at
workplace, experiences at workplace in regards
to gender, gender wage gap, and use of
technology. Participants in mentors’ focus group
expressed similar views regarding gender
equality articulating equal opportunities in their
workplace. On the other hand, junior participants
from the field of health care had a different view
of gender equality at workplace. In the following
section we present the analysis of the data
categorised in the five areas mentioned earlier:
Gender equality at workplace, experience at
workplace in regards to gender, gender wage gap
and the use of technology for addressing gender
equality issues.
1. Gender equality at workplace
Most of the participants in the senior focus group
expressed similar views with regard to gender
equality. They stated that they were given equal
opportunities and employers did not discriminate
due to gender. However, it was noted from some
senior participants the general feeling end
experience that sometimes things are not as equal
as they seem.
“It is obvious that our directors believes that
men can do better management than us.”
(Participant health - senior 3)

Junior participants from the health field had a
different view of gender equality at workplace.
2. Experiences at workplace in regards to gender
Participants from the senior focus group
expressed the influence of Cypriot culture at
work place in association to gender equality. A
senior participant from the field of business
expressed the feeling that Cypriot societal and
cultural influences are strong and men hold most
managerial positions.
“… I realized that as a woman I could never
hold a managerial position. I think that our
society is one of the communities in which men
are thought to be remarkable and capable
enough to hold managerial positions.”
(Participant business - senior 3)
Junior participants agreed that there is inequality
at workplace, however there was a strong
discussion with regard to woman’s role at work
and family. The “glass ceiling” appears in the
Cypriot society, as women seem incapable of
reaching high level positions in their workplace.
In such a society, unseen barriers prevent women
to claim higher positions. For example, a junior
participant from the field of business noted that
in a company aiming at the greatest possible
profit, men are preferred since women are more
emotional and may not be able to cope with
difficult situations or hard decisions. Sometimes,

even women employers are been more suspicious
towards women employees.
“…Every problem we have with machines we are
looking for a man to fix it. We find a male
colleague to do it…we believe that we are not
good in engineering. And I wonder if women do
not have the inclination to technology or if we
prefer not to deal with.” (Participant health -
junior 10)
Participants seemed to agree that women face
challenges at work, however in a different
degree.
“I often feel that not only my boss, but staff also,
expect me to do something more to prove my
abilities to manage difficult tasks …”
(Participant business- senior 3)
Participants also voiced pregnancy as a barrier
that women need to address in their workplace:
“In some cases if you are pregnant and you take
sick leaves/time off for breastfeeding the baby,
they will fire you...or cut off a large part of your
salary…There are companies that have in their
requirements that the woman needs to sign that
she will not get pregnant for 3 years.”
(Participant health - junior 11)

14Dissertation ProspectusInsert Prospectus Title Sub.docx

14Dissertation ProspectusInsert Prospectus Title Sub.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a 14Dissertation ProspectusInsert Prospectus Title Sub.docx

Semelhante a 14Dissertation ProspectusInsert Prospectus Title Sub.docx (19)

Mais de aulasnilda

Mais de aulasnilda (20)

Último

Último (20)

14Dissertation ProspectusInsert Prospectus Title Sub.docx