Dissertation Feedback

December 1, 2020

When working on your resubmission, please address a series of key items listed below. I am
also listing the feedback comments you’ve received.

General Comments

 A good dissertation that explores an interesting research question relevant to the digital
age. The design of the study is potentially interesting. However, the descriptions do not
seem to provide appropriate and sufficient details for correctly investigating the focal
research question. Several other issues are identified in each section.

Clarity of Rationale

 This dissertation tackles an interesting and important question about the effect of social
media on hiring decisions. It includes a successful introduction of the background issues and
a clear articulation of both benefits and drawbacks. However, due to the switching between
multiple perspectives (e.g., job seekers and employers) and vague expressions of keywords
(e.g., information on social media), it seems difficult to identify the specific research
question(s) until they were introduced at the end of the literature review.

o Structure your review to focus on the perspective that is in line with your
investigation
o Clarify your research question(s) early on
o You need to outline what information one can gain from SM platforms. Is it
personality and/or professionalism? When you say “information” on social media,
which one(s) are you referring to?
o On a related note, one of the major issues with using SM in selection is the
inconsistent information provided by the users (i.e., candidates). In consequence,
employers cannot obtain sufficient amounts of information for every candidate.
Some may not use one at all or make their pages inaccessible to external parties.
These should be addressed as part of the problem.

Review/Critique

 The review of the literature is thorough with detailed descriptions of major platforms.
However, the inclusion of LinkedIn seems to create some confusion in the other areas of the
review where the author talks about how people use social media for a recreational
purpose. While it is important to discuss how social media is used in the context of selection,
their different purposes for different selection phase should be clarified (a supplemental tool
to evaluate candidates vs. a primary tool for attracting applicants). In addition, while the
impartial presentation of relevant literature is important, the review also needs to build a
 clear argument towards the development of the proposed model and its hypotheses. In
consequence, there seems to be a disconnect between the review and the detailed research
questions (and research design).

o This is related to the comment above. It would be effective to delineate the

types of information employers can obtain from different sites you describe in
the literature review (e.g., personality traits from Facebook’s profile pages).
o The information on page 18 about LinkedIn seems redundant.
o The mix of a more professional SNS and others (Facebook, Twitter) seems to be
creating some confusion in the review. You want to make a clear distinction
among different types of SNS.
o Your review seems to switch between SNS as supplemental tools (in evaluating
the candidate) vs the primary tools (in recruiting). While it is fine to describe
different roles of SNS, it is important that you articulate the focal role utilized in
your study.
o Unfortunately, the review doesn’t provide the details about specific hypotheses
or variables involved. The review should generally inform your research design
and relevant hypotheses.

Research-Design-Methods

 There are a few major issues with the methods section. First, a clear description and
rationale of experimental design should be described. The section incorrectly explains three
experimental conditions as three separate independent variables. This resulted in irrelevant
accounts for both analytical strategy and interpretations of their expected results. The study
seems to have one independent variable with three levels (or conditions). Furthermore,
another important element in an experiment, a random assignment, is not discussed at all.
How are the participants divided into three groups?

o You don’t need to provide the details about quantitative and qualitative methods.
o Explain the detailed configuration of your experimental design. What are you
manipulating? How will you check whether the manipulation has worked?
o Properly describe your independent variable and dependent variable.
o The discussion on non-orthogonality is irrelevant.
o Provide more details about the process of determining the required sample size.
Which family of tests did you select? What effect size are you expecting?
o The most important element of experimental design – random assignment – should
be described.

Data analysis

 While the discussion on ANOVA is generally appropriate, post-hoc analyses should also be
described to fully determine the effect of social media types on the outcome variable. The
 discussion on CFA seems completely irrelevant given that each of the included variables do
not contain multiple items (i.e., impossible to form a latent factor). Furthermore, some
details are about exploratory analysis rather than CFA, creating confusions about what the
author is trying to test.

o This section will be much clearer with detailed hypotheses. Much confusion is
facilitated by the incorrect understanding of the independent variable.
o Remove the analytical details (e.g., CFA, exploratory analyses) that are not relevant
in testing your hypotheses.
o Calculation of Cronbach’s alpha is only applicable to the multi-item measures.

Conclusions

 The incorrect understanding of the main IV affects the discussion of the expected results and
the regression equation. It was unclear where the numbers (e.g., p-value, coefficient) come
from. As for practical implications, there are some interesting points about how employers
can utilize the insights from the study. How about theoretical implication? Some additional
reviews of relevant research are also provided.

o Your statement about regression analysis (p.43) is incorrect (i.e., cannot include
latent measure). Be sure to clarify what x, y, and z are. I am guessing that you’re
referring to three different conditions as you described as three IVs. If so, the
equation is incorrect.
o Rectify your interpretation of the correlation.
o There are reviews of some interesting and relevant research in your discussion. You
want to introduce them in the literature review.

Professionalism

 For the most part, this dissertation reads fine. However, it has numerous careless typological
errors, redundant ideas, and even a few inappropriate web links. Careful editing of the draft
is essential before submission. In the literature review, some claims are made without
proper citations, making it difficult to identify the origin of the ideas. The reference section
includes many cases of incomplete or incorrect descriptions of cited work.

o Add an abstract as well as other formatting requirements (e.g., table of contents,

acknowledgement, etc.).
o When referring to previous studies or other external sources, please make sure that
you add proper in-text citations. Please thoroughly review and follow the citation
rules (e.g., page numbers for direct quotations, alphabetical order for multiple in-
text citations, etc.).
o Remove the YouTube links
o Avoid the use of colloquial terms such as “next move” or “whopping.”