❌ Generic Feedback
What typical tools give you
—Your literature review needs improvement.
—The methodology section is unclear.
—Strengthen your theoretical framework.
—Add more citations throughout.
—Your argument needs better structure.
—The findings section lacks depth.
—Revise your research questions.
—The writing could be more academic.
Leaves you guessing what to actually fix and where.
✅ Specific HAIST© Feedback
What Dr. Dissertation delivers
✓p. 23: Your lit review skips post-2020 validity debates on mixed-methods design — add Creswell & Creswell (2023) and at least 2 peer-reviewed sources from 2021+.
✓p. 38: Theoretical framework introduced in Ch. 1 never reappears in Ch. 3 or Ch. 4 — committee will call this a fatal disconnect.
✓p. 47: Justify your choice of Creswell (2018) over Crotty (1998) — your methodology needs an epistemological defense or examiners will push back.
✓p. 61: Sampling rationale is unsupported — n=24 qualitative sample requires a citation (e.g., Guest et al., 2020) and a saturation argument.
✓p. 72: RQ2 is not answered in your findings — the data you collected does not map to this question as written.
✓p. 78: Chapter 5 contradicts the gap you established in Chapter 2 — reconcile or reframe your contribution statement.
✓p. 89: Limitations section is a single paragraph with no citations — examiners expect 3–5 limitations with supporting literature.
✓p. 94: Recommendations lack scholarly grounding — each should cite at least one peer-reviewed source supporting the suggested direction.
Every item is page-cited, committee-framed, and immediately actionable.