A Hybrid Fuzzy MCDM Approach to Thesis Subject Selection

Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 355--365 http://dx.doi.org/10.22436/jmcs.001.04.13

Download PDF

Download XML

• Export citations
  • CITATIONS & REFERENCES
  • EndNote (.ENW)
  • Mendeley, JabRef (.BIB)
  • Papers, Zotero, Reference Manager, RefWorks (.RIS)
  • ARTICLE CITATION
  • EndNote (.ENW)
  • Mendeley, JabRef (.BIB)
  • Papers, Zotero, Reference Manager, RefWorks (.RIS)
  • REFERENCES
  • EndNote (.ENW)
  • Mendeley, JabRef (.BIB)
  • Papers, Zotero, Reference Manager, RefWorks (.RIS)

• 2917 Downloads
• 4760 Views

Authors

Mohammad Hasan Aghdaie - Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Shomal University, Amol, Iran Majid Behzadian - Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Shomal University, Amol, Iran

Abstract

One of the most significant decisions that a doctoral student may make in the beginning of his/her research career is the selection of a thesis subject. There are also a number of conflicting criteria, including supervisor reputation, convergence of interest, student’s interest and motivation, etc, which should be considered as a part of the appropriate thesis subject selection process. For this purpose, multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods have been found to be useful approaches to solve this kind of problem. This paper devises a fuzzy hybrid analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) approach to the problem of thesis subject selection. Fuzzy AHP is used to calculate the weight of each criterion, and fuzzy TOPSIS is proposed to prioritize thesis subjects from the best to the worst ones. The application of fuzzy set theory allows incorporating the vague and imprecise linguistic terms into the decision process.

Share and Cite

Keywords

• Thesis subject
• Fuzzy TOPSIS
• Fuzzy AHP

MSC

•  03E72
•  62A86

References

• [1] F. T. Bozbura, A. Beskese, C. Kahraman, Prioritization of human capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP, Expert Syst Appl., 32 (2007), 1100--1112
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [2] R. S. Brause, Writing your doctoral dissertation: Invisible rules for success, Routledge Falmer, London (2000)
  • View Article


• [3] J. J. Buckley, Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17 (1985), 233--247
  • View Article
  • MathSciNet
  • Google Scholar


• [4] P. Burnett, The supervision of doctoral dissertation using a collaborative cohort model, Counselor Education and Supervision, 39 (1999), 46--52
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [5] R. L. Calabrese, The elements of an effective dissertation and thesis: A step-by-step guide to getting it right the first time, Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Lanham (2006)
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [6] D.-Y. Chang, L. L. Zhang, Extent analysis and synthetic decision, Optimization Techniques and Aplications, 1 (1992), 352--359
  • MathSciNet
  • Google Scholar


• [7] K. Chang, Kant’s disputation of 1770: the dissertation and the communication of knowledge in early modern Europe, Endeavour, 31 (2007), 45--49
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [8] C. T. Chen, Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision making under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114 (2000), 1--9
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [9] C.-T. Chen, C.-T. Lin, S.-F. Huang, A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 102 (2006), 289--301
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [10] M. Chiswick, Writing a research paper, Current Paediatrics, 14 (2004), 513--518
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [11] Y. R. Dong, Non-native Graduate Students' Thesis/Dissertation Writing in Science:Self-reports by Students and Their Advisors from Two U.S. Institutions, English for Specific Purposes, 17 (1998), 369--390
  • View Article
  • MathSciNet
  • Google Scholar


• [12] J. A. Finn, Getting a PhD: An action plan to help manage your research, your supervisor and your project, Routledge, New York (2005)
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [13] M. E. Garcia, R. W. Mallot, D. Brethower , A system of thesis and dissertation supervision:Helping graduate students succeed, Teaching of Psychology, 7 (1988), 89--92
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [14] L. Goodchild, M. Miller , Rethinking the dissertation process:tackling personal and institutional obstacles, in: The American doctorate and dissertation: six development stages, 1997 (1997), 17--32
  • Google Scholar


• [15] C. Kahraman, U. Cebeci, D. Ruan, Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 87 (2004), 171--184
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [16] C. Kahraman, D. Ruan, I. Doǧan, Fuzzy group decision making for facility location selection, Information sci., 157 (2003), 135--153
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [17] A. Kaufmann, M. M. Gupta , Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic: Theory and applications, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1991)
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [18] Z. C. Lin, C. B. Yang , Evaluation of machine selection by the AHP method, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 57 (1994), 253--258
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [19] R. E. Mayer, Old Advice for New Researchers, J. Educ. Psychol., 20 (2008), 19--28
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [20] K. A. Noble, Changing Doctoral Degrees: An International Perspective, SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham (1994)
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [21] S. Önüt, S. S. Kara, T. Efendigil, A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach to machine tool selection, J. Intell. Manuf., 19 (2008), 443--453
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [22] B. Paltridge, Thesis and Dissertation Writtng:an examination of published advice and actual practice, English for Specfic Purposes , 21 (2002), 125--143
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [23] J. Pansiri, Evolution of a doctoral thesis research topic and methodology: A personal experience, Tourism Management, 30 (2009), 83--89
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [24] E. M. Phillips, D. S. Pugh , How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors (4th ed.), Open University Press, Berkshire (2005)
  • View Article


• [25] F. T. Bozbura, A. Beskese, C. Kahraman, Prioritization of human capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP, Expert Syst. Appl., 32 (2007), 1100--1112
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [26] S. Ray, Selecting a Doctoral Dissertation Supervisor:Analytical Hierarchy Approach to the Multiple Criteria Problem, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2 (2007), 23--32
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [27] S. Robinson, K. Dracup , Innovative options for the doctoral dissertation in nursing, Nursing Outlook, 56 (2008), 174--178
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [28] E. Rudd, A new look at post graduate failure, SRHE and Slough, Guildford (1985)
  • Google Scholar


• [29] L. Scrivener, An Exploratory Analysis of History Students’ Dissertation Acknowledgments, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35 (2009), 241--251
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [30] , www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/syud.htm, , (2004),
  • View Article


• [31] T. Yang, C.-C. Hung , Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 23 (2007), 126--137
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [32] L. A. Zadeh, Information and Control, Fuzzy sets, 8 (1965), 338--353
  • Google Scholar