English
हिन्दी
TRB Suggestions for M.Sc dissertation proposals of DCE Department Meeting held on 29th October 2020
Aditi Sharma
- Opinion and satisfaction-related questions need to be segregated
- 5-point rating for satisfaction – will be difficult to conduct over the phone
- Very lengthy and extensive questionnaire-please make it doable
- The title of the paper needs more clarity – is it the accessibility or role, or implication of the scheme?
- Inclusion criteria: should also include only those farmers who are aware of the scheme.
- Usage of the word ‘Minimal plagiarism’ in ethical considerations is incorrect.
- Language issues in the proposal
- Question 6 has nearly ten sub-sections. Re-work in the light of suggestions given
- Can include women farmers if possible
- Look for a possibility of Gender-disaggregated selection of farmers
Aditi Verma
- Language in the questionnaire needs to be consistent
- Q.7 – give the respondents a wider range
- Q.1, 6, Too many details in the questions
- Title: ‘young people’ qualified with college attending as done in the objectives
- Some students in the second year are of 18 years, expand age range
- 3-4 sharp objectives should be enough
- Go to only students who are from Delhi.
- Section 2: Have more yes/no questions
- The ending of the questionnaire is very abrupt. Seek suggestions from the students. Thank your respondents.
Bhavna Verma
- Getting information once is good enough – two phases is a challenge
- Spend more time doing a pilot before finalising the design of the study.
- Too many objectives, too big a sample, please relook at these
- Remove questions related to opinions and satisfaction
- Look at the sequence of these questions and re-arrange accordingly
- Do not put everything in title, ‘Delhi’ only; remove ‘NCR’
- Remove the word – ‘quantitative study’
- Keep in mind the technological considerations
- Do away with Likert scales – ask simple, straightforward questions
- Include only those who have been asking these apps for a specific period and have a good comparison also
Bhumika Anand
- Consider limiting study to identifying message deficits as listed in Phase 1
- Study could be limited to the content analysis of messages about air population in air-pollution apps
- Content analysis in itself is a huge research approach
- Restrict yourself to detailed, in-depth content analysis and go deep into it. Bring out more useful qualitative data.
- In inclusion criteria Teachers have to be post-graduate if only college teachers being approached.
- Age criteria of teachers in sample should be rationalised.
- Use uniform terms as the meaning differs as in case of for teachers the word ‘Staff’ has also been used , which can be misinterpreted.
Dileesha
- Within the constraints of the study, you can focus on relating to only COVID-19 specific communication on mental health.
- Tool 2: Content Analysis Framework – how will you ensure objectivity when a respondent is answering these questions on the layout.
- Mention ‘Case study’ in the title
- Pandemic communication – redundant expression
- Review your title. Maybe reframe it as ‘Mental health during COVID-19: A case study of My Gov Corona Hub Facebook page’
- Spell-check your proposal
- In the exclusion – mention of NEP is not needed.
- Study may be limited to just content analysis. Make it doable.
- Mention the differences between a post and a creative
- Inter-coder reliability: Two coders will minimize the subjectivity and ensure the credibility of research
Dimple
- Q.6, Q.7, – What do you expect them to answer
- Q.11-You are not giving them options to answer
- Categorization of responses needs to be re-checked
- Re-word and redo leading questions
- Certain biases in your mind are evident. Ask questions whether something like this exists or not?
- In Title – Academics are not necessarily teachers. Clarify and define this.
- Inclusion criteria for women: change to women within 32/35-45 years of age.
- Analyze data from government and private institutions – for comparison
- Include the type of family factor too
Garima
- Objectives do not highlight the comparison of working and non-working women
- Re-look at the objectives
- Semi-structured interview schedule: Q.2 – what do you mean by ‘enough’? It is a very subjective word. Q.3 (3) – ‘always’,’ Q4 good quality’-the person will be conscious
- Questions related to food allocation are too direct and need to be re-worded
- Q.12 – relook at Suggestive statements
- Exclusion criteria needs to be appropriately worded.
- Either ask men and women both and then do a comparative study or Include such questions in the questionnaire for women.
- Assumptions about income criteria, nutritional requirements, needs to be checked
- Explicit bias to be removed from the study
Harina Kaur Oberoi
- Tools – (Section 2, Q.15)- some parts of the language used is very generic whereas some parts are personal
- Statement 6 – ‘high quality’ needs to be defined
- In several questions not clear ifpersonal opinions or generic opinions being asked
- Section 4: The table for each campaign should be different
- Title: too many concepts in the title. When talking about gender, isn’t the cause already defined?
- No need to have 2-3 panel of judges as They will bring in their own set of biases, you can have certain criteria for the selection of these campaigns. That should be enough.
- The use of the word – ‘powerful’. It is subjective and value-laden. ‘Effective’, ‘result-oriented’ are better options instead of ‘powerful’
- The questionnaire needs to be re-looked at. Pronouns to be checked
- Check if personal bias is there any question
- Go for in-depth interviews, if possible
Lakshmi Bhardwaj
- Can just have one phase for the study
- Have voluntary or convenient sampling, Remove the word ‘Public’ and use convenient in sample
- Better to have graduates and non-graduates in inclusion criteria
- Don’t confine to urban women if possible
Medha Saxena
- Section C of tool- how to ask ‘graphic’ question? Please check
- How to come to conclusion after asking a question.
- Q14- what is ‘Goals’?
- Look for farmers who have and donot have app
- Questions should be explanatory and not lengthy- remove complicated questions
- Title- can we say ‘utilization pattern’ instead of ‘user experience’
- Depending on outsiders for data collection is difficult- instead do a qualitative study
- Exclusion criteria- leaving a lot of population on basis of ‘affordability’
- Check possibility of including women and tenant farmers?
Meenakshi Bhardwaj
- Do not include media in the title. Relook at the title
- Famers not using green technologies is only the exclusion criterion.
- Don’t use ‘the term ‘anonymous’- mention that it will be used for study purpose
- Just ask the source of information in objective 4
- Look at the word qualitative mentioned in doc
- Age range- (20-40) years- may be taken and mention rationale for the selection of sample
- 45-50 mins for data collection over phone may be very long-please see.
- Keep track on what is happening to the farmers and how recent amendments have affected them? Consider
- current challenges. Read more about farmer’s issues
Neha Kumari
- Title- why ‘higher education’- relook
- Q7,8,9- reliable institute is a broad question, reconsider
- How would you define ‘aspiration’ as a researcher- instead it should be ‘aspirations’
- Higher education needs to be defined
- Why 18-23 years- why not 18-25 years?
- Strategies is missing in doc- only present in objectives but not reflected in the questionnaire
- Why to restrict to science and commerce only- include arts if possible.
- Include questions like distance and challenges
To View all M.Sc dissertation proposals of DCE Department Meeting held on 29th October 2020 – Click Here
List of Research Proposals M.Sc. Development Communication & Extension
| Sr. No. | Name of Students | Name of Supervisors | Research Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aditi Sharma | Dr. Rupa Upadhyay | Role of Pradhan Mantri FasalBimaYojna: A Study in Mahendragarh, Haryana |
| 2 | Aditi Verma | Dr. Sarita Anand | Assessing Knowledge and Practices of College Attending Youth about Environmental Degradation: A Study in Delhi-NCR |
| 3 | Bhavna Verma | Dr. Swati Kwatra | Menstrual Health Management (MHM) Apps and Young Unmarried Women of Delhi |
| 5 | Deelisha | Dr. Aparna Khanna | Pandemic Communication on Mental Healthduring Covid-19: A Case Study of My Gov Corona Hub Page on Facebook |
| 7 | Garima | Dr. Rupa Upadhyay | Role Of Urban Women in Household Food Security: AComparative Study of Working and Non -Working Women |
| 9 | Lakshmi | Dr. Sarita Anand | Feminist Identity of Young Urban Women of Delhi: An Analysis |
| 11 | Medha Saxena | Dr. Rupa Upadhyay | User Experience of Agriculture- Based Mobile Applications: A Study in Karnal, Haryana |
| 13 | Neha Kumari | Dr. Ruchi Gaur | Aspirations of YoungUndergraduate Women for Higher Education- A Study in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh Kangra |
| 15 | Renu Airy | Dr. Kiran Chauhan and Dr.Archna Kumar | Digital Literacy Assessment of School Children in Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand |
| 17 | Shruti V. | Dr. Aparna Khanna | Negotiating COVID-19Pandemic: Experiences of Traditional Media Practitioners |
| 20 | Vaishali | Dr.Archna Kumar | Effects Of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Lives of Women Domestic Workers in Delhi- NCR |
| 21 | Varda Hameed | Dr.Sunaina Batra | Re-telecast of Mythological Shows During the Pandemic: Perception of Delhi’s Youth |
Comments and Suggestions Received from IEC members in the meeting held on 28th November 2020
To View Comments and Suggestions Received from IEC Member in the Meeting – Click Here
Technical Review Board (TRB) 29th October, 2020 M.Sc. Development Communication & Extension
To View TRB M.Sc. Development Communication & Extension – Click Here
Minutes of Institutional Ethics Committee Meeting held on 21st November 2020
The Institutional Ethics Committee Meeting was held on 21st November 2020 through Google Meet. Research proposals for 16 MSc student’s dissertations were presented and discussed. All students were given ethical clearance.
The details of the recommendations for each student have been discussed below:
I. Exempt Category:
- The research proposal of the following student was considered under exempt category as it was laboratory based experimental study.
| Sr. No. | Research Title | Student Name | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Sustainable Cleaning: A Comparative Study Between the Efficacy of Tween 20 and Trigoneliafoenum graecum Seed Extract as Surfactants for Textile Conservation | Pragya Jain | There were no specific suggestions. |
II. Expedited Category
- The research proposals of 15 students were considered in the expedited category.
- The students were advised to list ethical issues pertaining to their study
The specific recommendations for some of the students in the expedited category are as follows:
| Sr. No. | Research Title | Student Name | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Legacy of Textiles and Costumes in Assam – Ahom & Khampti Tribes | Deepali Bajaj | Replace the word ‘tribes’ by communities/ethnic groups, list limitation of the study |
| 2. | Revival Efforts for Weaving Traditional Reza Fabric of Haryana | Husanvi | Study and analyze reasons for decline of the craft |
| 3. | Upgrading the Indigo Dyeing and Printing Techniques of Nandana Prints of Jawad in Madhya Pradesh | StudyZeba | Study history/origin of the craft, document whether artisans are also engaged in other work for alternate source of income, and whether next generation is taking up the craft |
| 4. | Threat of Discarded Personal Protective Equipment on Environment during the Corona Virus Pandemic | Aarti | Early days yet to study best practices, Contact NGO Chintan (working with rag pickers groups)to explore reports of salvaging and reuse of PPE, Ensure sample is from different departments in the hospitals |
| 5. | To Study the Effect of Covid-19 Pandemic on the Fashion and Lifestyle preferences of Women Consumers age between 20-50 years | Sakshi Singh | Study challenges with respect to buying in view of pandemic e.g. Buying without trying, Remove overlap in age groups for selection of sample i.e it should be 20-29 years, 30-39 years & so on, Reduce sample size to 10 in each category. |
| 6. | Current Status of Apparel Up Cycling: A Case Study | Shikha Joshi | Give operational definition of upcycling, More work required on the questionnaire as it seems sketchy |
| 7. | A Study on Sustainable Wardrobe Management Among College Going Girls of Delhi University | Shivani Gupta | Reduce sample to 30 in each category instead of 40. |
| 8. | Assessment of Kurta-Salwar as Uniform for Girl Students (9th-12thclasses) | Annkna | Reduce sample size to 50 girl students, 25 parents and 10 teachers, References should be given in alphabetical order |
| 9. | Clothing for Plus Size Teenagers: An Exploratory Study | Ritika Grover | References should be given in alphabetical order. |
| 10. | A Study Of Delhi Markets Selling Branded Export Surplus Garments and Its Impact on Brand Value | Supriya Janvasia | Explore brand website, Study requirements of retailers, Modify question 23, page 6. |
| 11. | Development and Dissemination of Ready Reckoner for Online Apparel Shopping | YouthVinaya Gupta | Obtain information with respect to income group of respondents by indicators such as area/locality of residence, include awareness about sustainable clothing choices |
Aditi Sharma:
Aditi Verma:
Bhawana:
Bhumika:
Dileesha:
Dimple:
Garima:
Harina:
Lakshmi:
Lunnaei:
Medha:
Meenakshi:
Neha:
Pooja:
Renu:
Riddhi:
Shruti:
Tanya:
Tulika:
Vaishali:
Varda: