Doctoral Paper by Adam Norten on Schneider's Dissertation
Assignment 3: Dissertation Review
by
Adam Norten
An assignment submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in
Information Systems
Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences
Nova Southeastern University
DISS-725 The System Development Process
Winter 2007 Institute
Dr. Yair Levy
2007
A Case Study of Information Assurance Field Experience
by
Helen Schneider
Chairperson – Gertrude W. Abramson, Ed.D
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in
Computing Technology in Education
Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences
Nova Southeastern University
2006
DISS-725 Dissertation Review
The dissertation, “A Case Study of Information Assurance Field Experience” by Helen Schneider (2006) proposes that small businesses and non-profit corporations lack the resources to deal with their own Information Assurance (IA) needs. IA is a way of assuring the “confidentiality, integrity, availability, authentication, and nonrepudiation” of information that is digitally stored or communicated (Schneider, 2006, p.1). In order to explore one possible solution to this problem, Schneider conducted a case study of a scholastic program at Walsh College in Troy, Michigan. In the study students enrolled in cyber security and computer forensics programs at Walsh College provided IA services for small businesses and non-profit organizations as part of a supervised field program. The dissertation also includes a mini-case study in which students from three classes from University of Findlay in Findlay, Ohio processed, analyzed, and presented the results of a community technology survey for the local Chamber of Commerce (Schneider, 2006).
The results of the studies which were derived from questionnaires completed by the participating students, faculty members, and businesses showed that the students involved gained practical experience for themselves while also satisfying the unmet IA security needs of the participating small businesses and non-profit organizations (Schneider, 2006). From those results Schneider (2006) was able to articulate success factors which can be used to direct the incorporation of field experience into future IA program curricula (Schneider, 2006).
What is the problem this dissertation is trying to address?
The problem that Schneider (2006) tries to address is threefold. First, small businesses and non-profit organizations need but do not have access to IA resources. IA encompasses the concept of security, of which there is a greater demand among today’s companies than existed in the past (Schneider, 2006, p. 5). In order to meet this need for security, companies’ employees must to be educated on a variety of security issues (Allen & Sledge, 2002). This need may go unmet by small businesses and non-profit organizations due to budgetary concerns and the unavailability of trained personnel (Schneider, 2006).
Second, one of the stated goals of the National Security Association (NSA), as well as a cyber-security responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is to promote public awareness and outreach in, “Establishing a comprehensive national awareness program to promote efforts to strengthen cybersecurity throughout government and the private sector, including the home user” (U.S. Government Accountability Office [U.S. GAO], 2005, p. 24). The inclusion of mandatory or optional field experience service in IA programs will contribute towards meeting these goals (Schneider, 2006).
The third problem that Schneider (2006) addresses is that IA curriculums under-utilize the concept of service work experience (Schneider, 2006). As such, IA programs fail to provide their students with the practical experience that a service work program would afford (Schneider, 2006). In this way, IA service work programs not only meet the needs of the participating businesses but enhance the educational experience of the participating students as well (Schneider, 2006).
One deficiency in the threefold problem statement Schneider (2006) presents is that it changes focus over the course of the dissertation. Schneider only briefly addresses the need of students for practical experience at the beginning of the dissertation addressing it more as an added benefit of the study rather than an actual problem to be addressed. Instead, Schneider initially focuses solely on the needs of small businesses and non-profit organizations. However, in the conclusion summary section, Schneider reverses the order of problems and instead lists first and stresses the benefits to students derived from field experience. This new problem order is inconsistent with the order Schneider presents in the beginning of the dissertation.
Why should anyone read this dissertation?
IA educators could gain from reading this dissertation in order to explore the benefits from including field work in their IA course curricula (Schneider, 2006). Schneider (2006) demonstrates that including field work in an IA curricula results in positives outcomes for the IA students involved. In addition, small businesses and non-profit organizations have everything to gain and nothing to lose by reading Schneider. They can find out how to satisfy their unmet security needs by obtaining IA services, security information and resources from students completing their field experience (Schneider, 2006). Finally, by reading Schneider, students can learn how to augment their IA education with practical, real world experiences. They can likewise develop problem-solving skills and associations with clients (Schneider, 2006). In addition, Schneider provides much useful information on scholarships that are available to IA students (Schneider, 2006, p.9).
What is the point of this dissertation (goal)?
The goal of this dissertation was to create a case study and mini-case study in which students at two colleges were assigned field work that provided IA services to small businesses and non-profit organizations. These two studies joined up the IA students’ need for field experience with the needs of small businesses and non-profit organizations for IA security support (Schneider, 2006). Schneider (2006) uses the results of these studies to determine success factors to be used in incorporating field experience into IA program curriculums (Schneider, 2006, p. 60). A sub-goal of Schneider is that all the participating students, small businesses and non-profit organizations benefit from their involvement in the studies.
Who should care about the solution?
Students currently enrolled or looking to enroll in computer forensics or cyber security curriculums should care about the benefits to be gained by incorporating field experience in their college programs discussed in Schneider (2006). IA educators may be interested as well in augmenting their schools’ programs by incorporating field experience into their curricula. In addition, small businesses and non-profit organizations should also be interested in the results of Schneider for the benefits that it could potentially provide them (Schneider, 2006). The DHS and NSA should also be interested in Schneider as well because the dissertation addresses their goals of promoting cyber-security awareness and outreach to the general public in order to strengthen national security (Schneider, 2006; U.S. GAO, 2005).
What is the argument behind the research?
The claim presented in Schneider (2006) is a three-fold claim that IA students, through field experience programs (1.) help meet the IA needs of small businesses and non-profit corporations, (2.) extend the reach of federal programs promoting IA such as those administered by the NSA and DHS, and (3.) gain real world IA experience for themselves (Schneider, 2006).
In support of her three-part claim, Schneider (2006) presents evidence primarily in the form of questionnaire responses. As to the first part of Schneider’s claim concerning benefits to small businesses and non-profit corporations from field experience programs, Schneider presents questionnaire responses from students, clients and professors (Schneider, 2006). Participating students felt that the clients became more aware of IA issues, and participating professors in both studies felt that the clients’ needs were met (Schneider, 2006). While Schneider acknowledged that the clients’ responses were “cautiously positive,” Schneider also pointed out that the clients agreed that the projects helped them to better respond to IA issues (Schneider, 2006).
As to the second part of her three-part claim, that supervised field experiences involving IA students will extend the reach of federal programs such as those administered by the NSA and DHS, Schneider failed to present any evidence to support this claim. As to the third part of her three-part claim, that students benefit from supervised field experiences, Schneider presents questionnaire responses from eleven of thirty students involved in the first study (Schneider, 2006, p. 73), and thirty-nine of forty-two of the students involved in the mini-case study (Schneider, 2006, p. 94). Of the students who responded to the surveys, a majority agreed that they gained knowledge they had not gained from attending classes and skills from participating in the program (Schneider, 2006).
Concerning warrants, the first part of the three-part claim is tied to the evidence under the implied warrant that although they lack real world experience, IA students can contribute valuable knowledge, skills and abilities to small businesses and non-profit corporations in the area of IA. Connecting the third part of the three-part claim with the evidence is the implied warrant that the real world experience students receive from participating in supervised field experiences rounds out and compliments their classroom training.
What evidence does the author present to support the arguments?
The sources of evidence on which Schneider (2006) relies includes, “documentation, archival records, interviews, and surveys” (Schneider, 2006, p. 49). In order to support that the educational environments in which the main and mini-case studies were as the dissertation represents, Schneider relies on “descriptions of the IA program and field experience criteria in the form of course catalog descriptions, syllabi, and project guidelines for the course” (Schneider, 2006, p. 49). As to students participating, Schneider relies on archival records consisting of “student lists, records of the course offerings, and numbers of students completing the course.” (Schneider, 2006 p. 50). Physical artifacts were also sought including notebooks and project records (Schneider, 2006, p. 50).
To capture evidence to support the dissertation’s main claim, Schneider (2006) used questionnaires. Schneider submitted questionnaires to participating students, faculty members, and the client organizations. The responses to these questionnaires formed the evidence on which Schneider based her conclusion that multiple benefits result from IA students participating in work study programs with small businesses and non-for-profit corporations.
What are the authors underlying assumptions or biases?
As to underlying assumptions, Schneider (2006) presents numerous assumptions concerning the benefits from and need for IA field experience programs. However, Schneider fails to substantiate these assumptions, a step which is necessary in order to use the assumptions to support a sound argument (Hart, 1998). For example, Schneider asserts that field experience involving IA majors working with non-profit corporations and small businesses raises “public awareness” (Schneider, 2006, pg. 4). Schneider likewise claims that the current business workforce lacks IA education (Schneider, 2006, p. 4), that small businesses do not have the budget to deal with their IA needs (Schneider, 2006, p. 4), that within non-metropolitan areas there are too few “paid services” available (Schneider, 2006, p. 4), and that even in metropolitan areas, non-profit organizations can not handle the expense of IA services (Schneider p. 4). Schneider presents these various assumptions, however, with no supporting literature or evidence.
The term “bias,” when used in the context of qualitative research, typically refers to the subjectivity of the researcher impacting the research study (Maxwell, 2005). In order to remove researcher bias and to ensure that Schneider (2006) did not change the reporting or the views of the participants, a draft of the dissertation was inspected by a key informant of the study before the final report was written (Schneider, 2006, p. 56). However, Schneider never identifies who the key informant is.
In order to minimize the impact of bias contained in a single source of evidence, Schneider (2006) uses multiple sources of evidence. While many sources of evidence can be used including interviews, documents, old records, direct or participant observation and physical artifacts, each of these can have its own bias and limits (Yin, 2003). Using them together, however, can create a pattern in which the data converges (Yin, 2003). Even though Schneider agrees with Yin about bias, Schneider only supports her conclusions with two types of evidence: responses from questionnaires and one telephone interview. Also, Schneider fails to address possible bias in one of the questionnaire responses she received. In particular, in response to the mini-case study, the client organization “indicated strong agreement with all of the Likert scale items” (Schneider, 2006, p. 92). While Schneider compares these questionnaire results with those received from the client in the main case study, Schneider does not acknowledge any possible bias despite the fact that the client gave the highest possible score in each category without deviation (Schneider, 2006, p. 92).
What is the claim of this dissertation?
The claim in Schneider (2006) is that IA field experience is both beneficial for students and companies (Schneider, 2006, p. 12). IA students, through field experience programs that are supervised by their instructors, help meet the security and IA needs of small businesses and non-profit organizations (Schneider, 2006). In addition, the use of field experience helps students gain real world IA experience and extends the reach of federal programs such as those administered by the NSA and DHS (Schneider, 2006).
Where and what are the holes in the argument/claim? (Study Limitations)
Schneider (2006) performed both her studies at small sized institutions with small numbers of participants (Schneider, 2006, p. 14). While the size of the institutions may not have prevented the studies from being effective, the level of student participation in the main case study proved problematic in that Schneider only received responses to 11 out of 30 questionnaires submitted to participating students in her main study (Schneider, 2006, p. 73). The response rate in Schneider’s mini-case study was better in that she received back responses from 39 out of 40 questionnaires submitted to students (Schneider, 2006, p. 94).
Another hole in her argument resulted from her failure to limit participation to the group of students she originally targeted to participate. Schneider acknowledges in her conclusion that since the data collected in the main case study was less than what she had hoped for, she had to perform an additional mini-case study at Findlay University where she is employed (Schneider, 2006, p. 102). While Schneider (2006) was careful to limit participation in the main case study to students enrolled in cyber security and forensics programs, in the mini-case study, only three IA students participated (Schneider, 2006). The rest of the students allowed to join in on the mini-study were enrolled in either statistics or project management (Schneider, 2006).
What is the success measure in the dissertation?
Schneider (2006) states that the results of her main and mini-case studies backed up her predictions with “positive affective reactions, and better understanding of the principles taught” for the students involved, and “positive reactions, better preparedness, and a willingness to share experiences with other organizations” for the businesses and non-profit organizations involved (Schneider, 2006, p.113). In Schneider’s summary of results, she also claims that both Walsh College and University of Findlay were pleased with the results of the field work at their institutions (Schneider, 2006).
Despite her conclusion that the measured results of her studies were successful, Schneider (2006) fails to speak to possible bias in the positive questionnaire responses she received. In particular, Schneider does not address the fact that the questionnaire results from the client in the mini-case study “indicated strong agreement with all of the Likert scale items” (Schneider, 2006, p. 92).
What are the validity (internal and external) as well as reliability issues in this dissertation? Did the author address it? Did the author justify it?
In the context of a research study, internal validity is the extent to which the study and its results enable the researcher to make correct conclusions concerning the study’s outcome (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 97). Schneider (2006) acknowledges that issues with internal validity, particularly during the data analysis phase, could have arisen. Schneider proposes, without citing any supporting research, that the negative impact of internal validity issues can be limited by use of “pattern matching, explanation building, addressing rival explanations, and using logic models” (Schneider, 2006, pp. 56-57). Schneider then indicates that at least two rival theories were identified. While Schneider identifies the rival theories, she provides no explanation as to who formulated the theories, and how they compared and contrasted with her work.
In order to address pattern matching, Schneider (2006) writes that she made pattern matching predictions before she collected the data. In addition, she looked for commonalities and differences between the test environments, and that these “commonalities and differences were used to identify converging and diverging patterns of response” (Schneider, 2006, p. 57). However, Schneider provides no explanation as to what patterns, commonalities and differences she found and assessed.
In the context of a research study, external validity is “the extent to which its results apply to situations beyond the study itself . . . .” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 99). While Schneider (2006) claims that she covered the issue of external validity during the research design phase by using “analytical generalization,” Schneider does not elaborate or provide any discussion on how she used “analytical generalization” (Schneider, 2006, pp. 57-58).
Finally, as to reliability, Schneider (2006) uses triangulation within the design of her case study by incorporating multiple sources of evidence. To ensure the reliability of the documentation, she created a database of the evidence she collected and a narrative of the report of the case study (Schneider, 2006). Schneider also ensured that she maintained the chain of evidence for the documents she collected so that her case study could be recreated by an observer (Schneider, 2006).
What is next? Did the author propose any valid path of future studies? What is it?
Schneider (2006) gives four different proposals for future study in this area. First, Schneider proposes that a study could be conducted involving students in programs where field experience was optional (Schneider, 2006). Then a comparison between students could be made of those who had to perform field experience and those students who had the option of choosing to do field experience (Schneider, 2006). Secondly, Schneider suggests a study of students from different scholastic programs such as research, traditional, undergraduate programs, computer engineering and criminal justice (Schneider, 2006). Thirdly, she suggests a study of students who have already been in the workplace from five to ten years (Schneider, 2006). Lastly, Schneider suggests longitudinal studies of the businesses that are involved in students’ field experiences in order to see what benefits the businesses derive from the students’ efforts (Schneider, 2006).
After reading this dissertation, what are the contributions it provided you?
I learned about the needs for small businesses and non-profit organizations to become more aware of IA and strive to achieve it, particularly in light of the increasing instances of data theft and use of malicious code (Symantec, 2007). I also learned the potential value of field experience to my own education. In particular, I discovered that field experience can be a combination of internship and service learning experiences and can promote community service (Schneider, 2006). I learned about the rigor that is involved in completing a Ph.D. dissertation at Nova Southeastern University. From closely analyzing Schneider, I saw that it is important to support your statements with high quality literature and that the failure to do so reduces the credibility of your research. As an aside, I found out about numerous scholarship opportunities available to IA students.
Reference List
Allen, J. H., & Sledge, C.A. (2002, July). Information survivability: Required shifts in perspective. Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 7-9. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://www.cert.org/archive/pdf/CrossTalk_Shifts_7-02.pdf
Hart, C., (1998). Doing a literature review. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (3rd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research and design an interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Schneider, H. (2006). A case study of information assurance field experience. Dissertations Abstracts International, 67 (02). (UMI No. 3207809) Retrieved March 14, 2007, from Dissertations and Theses database.
Symantec. (2007, March). Symantec reports rise in data theft, data leakage, and targeted attacks leading to hackers’ financial gain. Retrieved April 19, 2007, from http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp?prid=20070319_01
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Critical infrastructure protection: Department of Homeland Security faces challenges in fulfilling cybersecurity responsibilities. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05434.pdf
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
The Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences
Certification of Authorship of Dissertation Work
Submitted to: Dr. Levy
Student’s Name: Adam Norten
Date of Submission: April 22, 2007
Purpose and Title of Submission: Dissertation Review
Certification of Authorship: I hereby certify that I am the author of this document and that any assistance I received in its preparation is fully acknowledged and disclosed in the document. I have also cited all sources from which I obtained data, ideas, or words that are copied directly or paraphrased in the document. Sources are properly credited according to accepted standards for professional publications. I also certify that this paper was prepared by me for this purpose.
Student's Signature: Adam Norten____________________________________
by
Adam Norten
An assignment submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in
Information Systems
Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences
Nova Southeastern University
DISS-725 The System Development Process
Winter 2007 Institute
Dr. Yair Levy
2007
A Case Study of Information Assurance Field Experience
by
Helen Schneider
Chairperson – Gertrude W. Abramson, Ed.D
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in
Computing Technology in Education
Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences
Nova Southeastern University
2006
DISS-725 Dissertation Review
The dissertation, “A Case Study of Information Assurance Field Experience” by Helen Schneider (2006) proposes that small businesses and non-profit corporations lack the resources to deal with their own Information Assurance (IA) needs. IA is a way of assuring the “confidentiality, integrity, availability, authentication, and nonrepudiation” of information that is digitally stored or communicated (Schneider, 2006, p.1). In order to explore one possible solution to this problem, Schneider conducted a case study of a scholastic program at Walsh College in Troy, Michigan. In the study students enrolled in cyber security and computer forensics programs at Walsh College provided IA services for small businesses and non-profit organizations as part of a supervised field program. The dissertation also includes a mini-case study in which students from three classes from University of Findlay in Findlay, Ohio processed, analyzed, and presented the results of a community technology survey for the local Chamber of Commerce (Schneider, 2006).
The results of the studies which were derived from questionnaires completed by the participating students, faculty members, and businesses showed that the students involved gained practical experience for themselves while also satisfying the unmet IA security needs of the participating small businesses and non-profit organizations (Schneider, 2006). From those results Schneider (2006) was able to articulate success factors which can be used to direct the incorporation of field experience into future IA program curricula (Schneider, 2006).
What is the problem this dissertation is trying to address?
The problem that Schneider (2006) tries to address is threefold. First, small businesses and non-profit organizations need but do not have access to IA resources. IA encompasses the concept of security, of which there is a greater demand among today’s companies than existed in the past (Schneider, 2006, p. 5). In order to meet this need for security, companies’ employees must to be educated on a variety of security issues (Allen & Sledge, 2002). This need may go unmet by small businesses and non-profit organizations due to budgetary concerns and the unavailability of trained personnel (Schneider, 2006).
Second, one of the stated goals of the National Security Association (NSA), as well as a cyber-security responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is to promote public awareness and outreach in, “Establishing a comprehensive national awareness program to promote efforts to strengthen cybersecurity throughout government and the private sector, including the home user” (U.S. Government Accountability Office [U.S. GAO], 2005, p. 24). The inclusion of mandatory or optional field experience service in IA programs will contribute towards meeting these goals (Schneider, 2006).
The third problem that Schneider (2006) addresses is that IA curriculums under-utilize the concept of service work experience (Schneider, 2006). As such, IA programs fail to provide their students with the practical experience that a service work program would afford (Schneider, 2006). In this way, IA service work programs not only meet the needs of the participating businesses but enhance the educational experience of the participating students as well (Schneider, 2006).
One deficiency in the threefold problem statement Schneider (2006) presents is that it changes focus over the course of the dissertation. Schneider only briefly addresses the need of students for practical experience at the beginning of the dissertation addressing it more as an added benefit of the study rather than an actual problem to be addressed. Instead, Schneider initially focuses solely on the needs of small businesses and non-profit organizations. However, in the conclusion summary section, Schneider reverses the order of problems and instead lists first and stresses the benefits to students derived from field experience. This new problem order is inconsistent with the order Schneider presents in the beginning of the dissertation.
Why should anyone read this dissertation?
IA educators could gain from reading this dissertation in order to explore the benefits from including field work in their IA course curricula (Schneider, 2006). Schneider (2006) demonstrates that including field work in an IA curricula results in positives outcomes for the IA students involved. In addition, small businesses and non-profit organizations have everything to gain and nothing to lose by reading Schneider. They can find out how to satisfy their unmet security needs by obtaining IA services, security information and resources from students completing their field experience (Schneider, 2006). Finally, by reading Schneider, students can learn how to augment their IA education with practical, real world experiences. They can likewise develop problem-solving skills and associations with clients (Schneider, 2006). In addition, Schneider provides much useful information on scholarships that are available to IA students (Schneider, 2006, p.9).
What is the point of this dissertation (goal)?
The goal of this dissertation was to create a case study and mini-case study in which students at two colleges were assigned field work that provided IA services to small businesses and non-profit organizations. These two studies joined up the IA students’ need for field experience with the needs of small businesses and non-profit organizations for IA security support (Schneider, 2006). Schneider (2006) uses the results of these studies to determine success factors to be used in incorporating field experience into IA program curriculums (Schneider, 2006, p. 60). A sub-goal of Schneider is that all the participating students, small businesses and non-profit organizations benefit from their involvement in the studies.
Who should care about the solution?
Students currently enrolled or looking to enroll in computer forensics or cyber security curriculums should care about the benefits to be gained by incorporating field experience in their college programs discussed in Schneider (2006). IA educators may be interested as well in augmenting their schools’ programs by incorporating field experience into their curricula. In addition, small businesses and non-profit organizations should also be interested in the results of Schneider for the benefits that it could potentially provide them (Schneider, 2006). The DHS and NSA should also be interested in Schneider as well because the dissertation addresses their goals of promoting cyber-security awareness and outreach to the general public in order to strengthen national security (Schneider, 2006; U.S. GAO, 2005).
What is the argument behind the research?
The claim presented in Schneider (2006) is a three-fold claim that IA students, through field experience programs (1.) help meet the IA needs of small businesses and non-profit corporations, (2.) extend the reach of federal programs promoting IA such as those administered by the NSA and DHS, and (3.) gain real world IA experience for themselves (Schneider, 2006).
In support of her three-part claim, Schneider (2006) presents evidence primarily in the form of questionnaire responses. As to the first part of Schneider’s claim concerning benefits to small businesses and non-profit corporations from field experience programs, Schneider presents questionnaire responses from students, clients and professors (Schneider, 2006). Participating students felt that the clients became more aware of IA issues, and participating professors in both studies felt that the clients’ needs were met (Schneider, 2006). While Schneider acknowledged that the clients’ responses were “cautiously positive,” Schneider also pointed out that the clients agreed that the projects helped them to better respond to IA issues (Schneider, 2006).
As to the second part of her three-part claim, that supervised field experiences involving IA students will extend the reach of federal programs such as those administered by the NSA and DHS, Schneider failed to present any evidence to support this claim. As to the third part of her three-part claim, that students benefit from supervised field experiences, Schneider presents questionnaire responses from eleven of thirty students involved in the first study (Schneider, 2006, p. 73), and thirty-nine of forty-two of the students involved in the mini-case study (Schneider, 2006, p. 94). Of the students who responded to the surveys, a majority agreed that they gained knowledge they had not gained from attending classes and skills from participating in the program (Schneider, 2006).
Concerning warrants, the first part of the three-part claim is tied to the evidence under the implied warrant that although they lack real world experience, IA students can contribute valuable knowledge, skills and abilities to small businesses and non-profit corporations in the area of IA. Connecting the third part of the three-part claim with the evidence is the implied warrant that the real world experience students receive from participating in supervised field experiences rounds out and compliments their classroom training.
What evidence does the author present to support the arguments?
The sources of evidence on which Schneider (2006) relies includes, “documentation, archival records, interviews, and surveys” (Schneider, 2006, p. 49). In order to support that the educational environments in which the main and mini-case studies were as the dissertation represents, Schneider relies on “descriptions of the IA program and field experience criteria in the form of course catalog descriptions, syllabi, and project guidelines for the course” (Schneider, 2006, p. 49). As to students participating, Schneider relies on archival records consisting of “student lists, records of the course offerings, and numbers of students completing the course.” (Schneider, 2006 p. 50). Physical artifacts were also sought including notebooks and project records (Schneider, 2006, p. 50).
To capture evidence to support the dissertation’s main claim, Schneider (2006) used questionnaires. Schneider submitted questionnaires to participating students, faculty members, and the client organizations. The responses to these questionnaires formed the evidence on which Schneider based her conclusion that multiple benefits result from IA students participating in work study programs with small businesses and non-for-profit corporations.
What are the authors underlying assumptions or biases?
As to underlying assumptions, Schneider (2006) presents numerous assumptions concerning the benefits from and need for IA field experience programs. However, Schneider fails to substantiate these assumptions, a step which is necessary in order to use the assumptions to support a sound argument (Hart, 1998). For example, Schneider asserts that field experience involving IA majors working with non-profit corporations and small businesses raises “public awareness” (Schneider, 2006, pg. 4). Schneider likewise claims that the current business workforce lacks IA education (Schneider, 2006, p. 4), that small businesses do not have the budget to deal with their IA needs (Schneider, 2006, p. 4), that within non-metropolitan areas there are too few “paid services” available (Schneider, 2006, p. 4), and that even in metropolitan areas, non-profit organizations can not handle the expense of IA services (Schneider p. 4). Schneider presents these various assumptions, however, with no supporting literature or evidence.
The term “bias,” when used in the context of qualitative research, typically refers to the subjectivity of the researcher impacting the research study (Maxwell, 2005). In order to remove researcher bias and to ensure that Schneider (2006) did not change the reporting or the views of the participants, a draft of the dissertation was inspected by a key informant of the study before the final report was written (Schneider, 2006, p. 56). However, Schneider never identifies who the key informant is.
In order to minimize the impact of bias contained in a single source of evidence, Schneider (2006) uses multiple sources of evidence. While many sources of evidence can be used including interviews, documents, old records, direct or participant observation and physical artifacts, each of these can have its own bias and limits (Yin, 2003). Using them together, however, can create a pattern in which the data converges (Yin, 2003). Even though Schneider agrees with Yin about bias, Schneider only supports her conclusions with two types of evidence: responses from questionnaires and one telephone interview. Also, Schneider fails to address possible bias in one of the questionnaire responses she received. In particular, in response to the mini-case study, the client organization “indicated strong agreement with all of the Likert scale items” (Schneider, 2006, p. 92). While Schneider compares these questionnaire results with those received from the client in the main case study, Schneider does not acknowledge any possible bias despite the fact that the client gave the highest possible score in each category without deviation (Schneider, 2006, p. 92).
What is the claim of this dissertation?
The claim in Schneider (2006) is that IA field experience is both beneficial for students and companies (Schneider, 2006, p. 12). IA students, through field experience programs that are supervised by their instructors, help meet the security and IA needs of small businesses and non-profit organizations (Schneider, 2006). In addition, the use of field experience helps students gain real world IA experience and extends the reach of federal programs such as those administered by the NSA and DHS (Schneider, 2006).
Where and what are the holes in the argument/claim? (Study Limitations)
Schneider (2006) performed both her studies at small sized institutions with small numbers of participants (Schneider, 2006, p. 14). While the size of the institutions may not have prevented the studies from being effective, the level of student participation in the main case study proved problematic in that Schneider only received responses to 11 out of 30 questionnaires submitted to participating students in her main study (Schneider, 2006, p. 73). The response rate in Schneider’s mini-case study was better in that she received back responses from 39 out of 40 questionnaires submitted to students (Schneider, 2006, p. 94).
Another hole in her argument resulted from her failure to limit participation to the group of students she originally targeted to participate. Schneider acknowledges in her conclusion that since the data collected in the main case study was less than what she had hoped for, she had to perform an additional mini-case study at Findlay University where she is employed (Schneider, 2006, p. 102). While Schneider (2006) was careful to limit participation in the main case study to students enrolled in cyber security and forensics programs, in the mini-case study, only three IA students participated (Schneider, 2006). The rest of the students allowed to join in on the mini-study were enrolled in either statistics or project management (Schneider, 2006).
What is the success measure in the dissertation?
Schneider (2006) states that the results of her main and mini-case studies backed up her predictions with “positive affective reactions, and better understanding of the principles taught” for the students involved, and “positive reactions, better preparedness, and a willingness to share experiences with other organizations” for the businesses and non-profit organizations involved (Schneider, 2006, p.113). In Schneider’s summary of results, she also claims that both Walsh College and University of Findlay were pleased with the results of the field work at their institutions (Schneider, 2006).
Despite her conclusion that the measured results of her studies were successful, Schneider (2006) fails to speak to possible bias in the positive questionnaire responses she received. In particular, Schneider does not address the fact that the questionnaire results from the client in the mini-case study “indicated strong agreement with all of the Likert scale items” (Schneider, 2006, p. 92).
What are the validity (internal and external) as well as reliability issues in this dissertation? Did the author address it? Did the author justify it?
In the context of a research study, internal validity is the extent to which the study and its results enable the researcher to make correct conclusions concerning the study’s outcome (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 97). Schneider (2006) acknowledges that issues with internal validity, particularly during the data analysis phase, could have arisen. Schneider proposes, without citing any supporting research, that the negative impact of internal validity issues can be limited by use of “pattern matching, explanation building, addressing rival explanations, and using logic models” (Schneider, 2006, pp. 56-57). Schneider then indicates that at least two rival theories were identified. While Schneider identifies the rival theories, she provides no explanation as to who formulated the theories, and how they compared and contrasted with her work.
In order to address pattern matching, Schneider (2006) writes that she made pattern matching predictions before she collected the data. In addition, she looked for commonalities and differences between the test environments, and that these “commonalities and differences were used to identify converging and diverging patterns of response” (Schneider, 2006, p. 57). However, Schneider provides no explanation as to what patterns, commonalities and differences she found and assessed.
In the context of a research study, external validity is “the extent to which its results apply to situations beyond the study itself . . . .” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 99). While Schneider (2006) claims that she covered the issue of external validity during the research design phase by using “analytical generalization,” Schneider does not elaborate or provide any discussion on how she used “analytical generalization” (Schneider, 2006, pp. 57-58).
Finally, as to reliability, Schneider (2006) uses triangulation within the design of her case study by incorporating multiple sources of evidence. To ensure the reliability of the documentation, she created a database of the evidence she collected and a narrative of the report of the case study (Schneider, 2006). Schneider also ensured that she maintained the chain of evidence for the documents she collected so that her case study could be recreated by an observer (Schneider, 2006).
What is next? Did the author propose any valid path of future studies? What is it?
Schneider (2006) gives four different proposals for future study in this area. First, Schneider proposes that a study could be conducted involving students in programs where field experience was optional (Schneider, 2006). Then a comparison between students could be made of those who had to perform field experience and those students who had the option of choosing to do field experience (Schneider, 2006). Secondly, Schneider suggests a study of students from different scholastic programs such as research, traditional, undergraduate programs, computer engineering and criminal justice (Schneider, 2006). Thirdly, she suggests a study of students who have already been in the workplace from five to ten years (Schneider, 2006). Lastly, Schneider suggests longitudinal studies of the businesses that are involved in students’ field experiences in order to see what benefits the businesses derive from the students’ efforts (Schneider, 2006).
After reading this dissertation, what are the contributions it provided you?
I learned about the needs for small businesses and non-profit organizations to become more aware of IA and strive to achieve it, particularly in light of the increasing instances of data theft and use of malicious code (Symantec, 2007). I also learned the potential value of field experience to my own education. In particular, I discovered that field experience can be a combination of internship and service learning experiences and can promote community service (Schneider, 2006). I learned about the rigor that is involved in completing a Ph.D. dissertation at Nova Southeastern University. From closely analyzing Schneider, I saw that it is important to support your statements with high quality literature and that the failure to do so reduces the credibility of your research. As an aside, I found out about numerous scholarship opportunities available to IA students.
Reference List
Allen, J. H., & Sledge, C.A. (2002, July). Information survivability: Required shifts in perspective. Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 7-9. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://www.cert.org/archive/pdf/CrossTalk_Shifts_7-02.pdf
Hart, C., (1998). Doing a literature review. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (3rd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research and design an interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Schneider, H. (2006). A case study of information assurance field experience. Dissertations Abstracts International, 67 (02). (UMI No. 3207809) Retrieved March 14, 2007, from Dissertations and Theses database.
Symantec. (2007, March). Symantec reports rise in data theft, data leakage, and targeted attacks leading to hackers’ financial gain. Retrieved April 19, 2007, from http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp?prid=20070319_01
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Critical infrastructure protection: Department of Homeland Security faces challenges in fulfilling cybersecurity responsibilities. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05434.pdf
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
The Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences
Certification of Authorship of Dissertation Work
Submitted to: Dr. Levy
Student’s Name: Adam Norten
Date of Submission: April 22, 2007
Purpose and Title of Submission: Dissertation Review
Certification of Authorship: I hereby certify that I am the author of this document and that any assistance I received in its preparation is fully acknowledged and disclosed in the document. I have also cited all sources from which I obtained data, ideas, or words that are copied directly or paraphrased in the document. Sources are properly credited according to accepted standards for professional publications. I also certify that this paper was prepared by me for this purpose.
Student's Signature: Adam Norten____________________________________
posted by Dr. Adam Norten at 9:17 AM
0 comments
