Research Misconduct (in same category as plagiarism)
My dissertation topic: Leadership Styles and Style Adaptability Levels of Deans and Department
Chairs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
My dissertation chair, Dr. Mary Ellen Edwards, (with support from other dissertation committee members) fed me flawed dissertation research data, even though I phoned her and told her that the data she was providing me were not good. However, she dismissed my concern. She and the dissertation committee approved their flawed data for my dissertation defense presentation (see dissertation defense mockery pull down on this website). When I put emphasis on their flawed data, I am referring to their removing my data and replacing my data with theirs. When they told me I did not pass the dissertation defense, they cited their flawed data for my failure.
1. Dissertation chair’s 12/6/10 email to me she stated that “I am attaching the revisions I did to your dissertation here. I am also sending this to Dr. Svetlana Beltyukova [the statistical research expert committee member, a title designated by my dissertation chair] for her thoughts on chapter 4. There were some minor changes in Chapter 3 starting on about page 50. I redid the stats and did some extensive revisions of Chapter 4. You basically had most of your hypotheses #2 answered, but I regrouped the data to make the leadership style variable for the #1 hypotheses make more sense.” Emails like this from my dissertation chair and Dr. Beltyukova tell a story of the major changes that they made to my dissertation. The changes they made ripped my dissertation document apart and made it unfit for presentation. I presented their changes at my dissertation defense on August 15, 2011. Dr. Mary Ellen Edwards, my dissertation chair, the person who gave me the flawed data, told me I did not pass. My phone call to her, prior to my dissertation defense, informing her that the changes she was asking me to make were wrong, meant nothing. These actions by my dissertation chair and committee members were a set up. They gave me bad data. They knew they were going to fail me, citing their bad data.
2. Page 74 show changes per my dissertation chair’s 12/6/10 email (dissertation document attached) –
On page 74 my dissertation chair underlined her changes. Her underlined statement that “although the relationship was not statistically significant at the .05 level, p=.06 and [it] is approaching a statistically significant difference” should never have been made. Results are either statistically significant or they are not statistically significant. This statement is a hedging statement, an attempt to defend her result. Although my dissertation chair told me to make the change to my dissertation document and approved the change (she and the dissertation committee) for my dissertation defense, that change, in particular the words, about “approaching a statistically significant difference,” were what caused the uproar at my dissertation defense on August 15, 2011. “No, no,” exclaimed Dr. Beltyukova, “there is no such thing as “approaching statistical significance.” After my dissertation chair told me I would have to prepare for a second defense. I told her that I had presented the information she gave me. She took no ownership in my not passing. (See the dissertation defense mockery pull down on this website.
I need someone (some brave person to help me fight this injustice) who is knowledgeable about the principles of qualitative and quantitative research to meet with me to actually look at the data. There are more examples of research misconduct by my dissertation chair and committee members than the one I’ve shown here.