Anomalous Scientific Foundations: Research and Development (R&D) Model Synthesis Practices in Indonesian Doctoral Dissertations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24252/mapan.2025v13n2a1Keywords:
R&D Model Synthesis, Doctoral Dissertations, Methodological Integrity, Research Methodology, Philosophical FoundationsAbstract
The synthesis of Research and Development (R&D) models in Indonesian doctoral dissertations has become increasingly common. This study examines how doctoral students formulate and implement such syntheses, identifying the conceptual and technical challenges they face. Using a concurrent mixed methods design, data were collected through an online survey with open and closed ended questions. Responses from 51 participants were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The results show that all students used synthesized R&D models without adequate scientific justification, as evidenced by the absence of philosophical grounding, lack of expert validation, misalignment with research paradigms, and omission of preliminary testing. Students also faced three major challenges: limited understanding of philosophical assumptions, difficulty integrating model structures, and strong dependence on informal supervisory advice. These issues undermine methodological coherence and threaten the integrity of developmental research in doctoral programs. The study highlights the need to strengthen methodological training, reform supervision practices, and produce clearer, evidence based guidelines. It recommends prioritizing rigorously validated single model R&D approaches to ensure conceptual clarity and academic credibility.
Abstrak:
Sintesis model Research and Development (R&D) dalam disertasi doktor di Indonesia semakin meluas. Penelitian ini mengkaji bagaimana mahasiswa doktoral merumuskan dan menerapkan sintesis tersebut serta mengidentifikasi tantangan konseptual dan teknis yang mereka hadapi. Dengan menggunakan desain concurrent mixed methods, data dikumpulkan melalui survei daring yang terdiri atas pertanyaan terbuka dan tertutup. Sebanyak 51 respons dianalisis menggunakan statistik deskriptif dan analisis tematik. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa seluruh mahasiswa menggunakan model R&D tersintesis tanpa justifikasi ilmiah yang memadai, ditandai dengan ketiadaan landasan filosofis, tidak adanya validasi ahli, ketidaksesuaian dengan paradigma penelitian, dan tidak dilakukannya preliminary testing. Mahasiswa juga mengalami tiga tantangan utama: keterbatasan pemahaman tentang asumsi filosofis, kesulitan mengintegrasikan struktur model, serta ketergantungan yang tinggi pada bimbingan informal dari pembimbing. Masalah-masalah ini melemahkan koherensi metodologis dan mengancam integritas tradisi penelitian pengembangan di program doktor. Penelitian ini menekankan perlunya penguatan pelatihan metodologi, reformasi praktik pembimbingan, dan penyusunan panduan berbasis bukti yang lebih jelas. Penelitian ini merekomendasikan penggunaan model R&D tunggal yang telah divalidasi secara ketat untuk memastikan kejelasan konseptual dan kredibilitas akademik.
Downloads
References
Akker, Den, J. V., Bannan, B., Kelly, A., Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2013). Educational design research: an introduction. Educational Design Research, 1, 11–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_11.
Al-Ababneh, M. M. (2020). Linking ontology, epistemology, and research methodology. Science & Philosophy, 8(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.23756/sp.v8i1.500.
Anwar, V. N. (2024). Pengembangan model pedagogi digital dalam pembelajaran matematika terintegrasi computational thinking untuk meningkatkan kemampuan problem solving siswa sekolah menengah pertama. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2016). Design-based research: clarifying the terms. New York: Psychology Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2025). Reporting guidelines for qualitative research: a values-based approach. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(22), 399–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2382244.
Brundrett, M., & Rhodes, C. (2011). Theories of educational research. New York: Sage Publications Inc.
Campbell, M., McKenzie, J. E., Sowden, A., Katikireddi, S. V., Brennan, S. E., Ellis, S., Hartmann-Boyce, J., Ryan, R., Shepperd, S., Thomas, J., Welch, V., & Thomson, H. (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (swim) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ, 268, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890.
Cash, P., Daalhuizen, J., & Hekkert, P. (2023). Evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of design methods: a systematic review and assessment framework. Design Studies, 88(101204), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2023.101204.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. New York: SAGE Publications.
Coates, A. (2021). The prevalence of philosophical assumptions described in mixed methods research in education. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820958210.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). New York: Sage Publications Inc.
Devezer, B., & Buzbas, E. O. (2023). Rigorous exploration in a model-centric science via epistemic iteration. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(2), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000121.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (2020). Applying educational research: How to read, do, and use research to solve problems of practice (7th ed.). London, United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
Gamage, A. N. (2025). Research design, philosophy, and quantitative approaches in scientific research methodology. Scholars Journal of Engineering and Technology, 13(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.36347/sjet.2025.v13i02.004.
Glick, W. H., Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. (2008). Reality check on career success and weak paradigms: chance still favors the hearty soul. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(6), 715–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.538.
Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PloS One, 15(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076.
Haagen-Schutzenhofer, C., & Hopf, M. (2020). Design-based research as a model for systematic curriculum development: The example of a curriculum for introductory optics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020152.
He, Y., Tian, K., & Xu, X. (2023). A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review. Scientometrics, 128(1), 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04552-x.
Heinze, G., Boulesteix, A. L., Kammer, M., Morris, T. P., & White, I. R. (2024). Phases of methodological research in biostatistics building the evidence base for new methods. Biometrical Journal, 66(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.202200222.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625.
Hodell, C. (2015). The ADDIE model for instructional design is explained. Association for Talent Development.
Irawan, A. G., Padmadewi, N. N., & Artini, L. P. (2018). Instructional materials development through the 4d model. SHS Web of Conferences, 42(00086), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184200086.
Ismail, I. A., Mawardi, Lufri, Usmeldi, & Festiyed. (2024). A comparative analysis of Plomp and 4D development models: a systematic review for dissertation research model selection. International Journal of Academic and Applied Research, 8(11), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14332682.
Jewitt, C., Xambo, A., & Price, S. (2017). Exploring methodological innovation in the social sciences: the body in digital environments and the arts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1129143.
Johnson, C., Hill, L., Lock, J., Altowairiki, N., Ostrowski, C., Santos, L. R., & Liu, Y. (2017). Using design-based research to develop meaningful online discussions in undergraduate field experience courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.2901.
Kroop, S. (2025). Artifact validity in design science research (DSR): A comparative analysis of three influential frameworks. In International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (pp. 199-215). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Kurt, S. (2017). ADDIE model: instructional design. United State: HRD Press.
Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000523.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage Publications Inc.
Liu, Y. (2022). Paradigmatic compatibility matters: a critical review of qualitative-quantitative debate in mixed methods research. SAGE Open, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244022107992.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). UK: Routledge.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2019). Reproducibility and replicability in science. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Nur, F. (2023). Pengembangan model pembelajaran kolaboratif OS2L berbasis blended learning. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Universitas Negeri Makassar.
Patton, M. (2025). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). New York: Sage Publications Inc.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Gengler, C. E., Rossi, M., Hui, W., Virtanen, V., & Bragge, J. (2020). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of management information systems, 24(3), 45-77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302.
Piran, M. J., & Tran, N. H. (2024). Enhancing research methodology and academic publishing: a structured framework for quality and integrity. ArXiv:2412.05683, 1, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.05683.
Recio-Saucedo, A., Crane, K., Meadmore, K., Fackrell, K., Church, H., Fraser, S., & Blatch-Jones, A. (2022). What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00120-2.
Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. (2020). Merging the instructional design process with learner-centered theory: the holistic 4D model. UK: Routledge.
Reigeluth, C. M., Beatty, B. J., & Myers, R. D. (2017). Instructional design theories and models: the learner-centered paradigm of education. UK: Routledge.
Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2023). Science, values, and the new demarcation problem. Journal of General Philosophy of Science, 54(2), 259–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09633-2.
Rossenberg, Y. G. T. Van, Sanderson, Z., Achnak, S., Brookes, A., Doci, E., Ghoreysh, M., Hack-Polay, D., Hartgerink, C., Hopkins, B., Hornung, S., Khuda, K., Lub, X., McKew, C., Mendy, J., & Nijs, S. (2024). Ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Elgar Encyclopedia of Organizational Psychology, 409–416. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803921761.00082.
Saltelli, A., & Giampietro, M. (2015). The fallacy of evidence-based policy. ArXiv:1607.07398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012.
Spatioti, A. G., Kazanidis, I., & Pange, J. (2022). A comparative study of the ADDIE instructional design model in distance education. Information, 13(9), 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13090402.
Sun, P., & Zuo, X. (2024). Philosophical foundations of management research: a comprehensive review. Journal of Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.58970/JSR.1031.
Tampa, A., Tawil, M., & Manggi, I. (2023). Development research. Makassar: Badan Penerbit Universitas Negeri Makassar.
Tang, D., Boker, S. M., & Tong, X. (2025). Are the signs of factor loadings arbitrary in confirmatory factor analysis? problems and solutions. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32(1), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2024.2351102.
Timonen, V., Foley, G., & Conlon, C. (2024). Quality in qualitative research: a relational process. Qualitative Research Journal, 7. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-07-2024-0153.
Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Peyrot, H. L. S. (2025). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. United State: John Wiley & Sons.
Vowels, M. J. (2023). Misspecification and unreliable interpretations in psychology and social science. Psychological Methods, 28(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000429.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Alimuddin, Wen Haw Chen, Rosidah, Fauziyyah Alimuddin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.gif)
