Sustentación Tesis Doctoral

Introduction of the Thesis Examination

Overview of Participants and Structure

• The examination is led by Dr. Manuel Machuca Martínez as secretary and Dr. Nancy Edit Ochoa Guevara as a member, both appointed due to their expertise.

• Jorge Ariel Loaisa presents his thesis titled "Modelo de análisis de la intención emprendedora de los estudiantes universitarios latinoamericanos" aimed at strengthening the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Colombia from 2015 to 2026.

• The session lasts one hour, including 10 minutes for presentation, 30 minutes for questions, and a maximum of 10 minutes for deliberation.

Presentation Guidelines

• After the question round, there will be a brief intermission where the committee deliberates on the thesis evaluation before announcing results.

• Jorge is reminded to keep his presentation within the allotted time and that members should mute their microphones during his talk.

Questioning Phase Begins

Initial Questions from Committee Members

• Following Jorge's presentation, committee members are invited to ask questions based on their review of his thesis work.

• Each member has an opportunity to pose one question initially within a structured timeframe of 20 minutes.

Concerns Raised by Dr. Nancy

Critical Feedback on Methodology

• Dr. Nancy expresses concerns about losing focus after discussing mixed methodology in Jorge's thesis.

• She questions why international accreditation comparisons were made despite low entrepreneurship rates in Colombia, suggesting a need for local studies first.

Hypothesis Issues

• Dr. Nancy points out that hypotheses yielded null results; she challenges Jorge on how he can propose transformative solutions under these circumstances.

Further Methodological Critique

Data Validity Concerns

• There are warnings regarding data quality presented in Jorge’s questionnaire; it lacked expert validation which raises doubts about its reliability.

Recommendations for Improvement

• Emphasis is placed on ensuring robust quantitative methods are applied before making international claims based on weak data.

Reflection and Encouragement

Constructive Criticism Acknowledged

• The committee stresses that feedback aims to enhance Jorge's research quality rather than undermine it; they encourage him to reflect critically on suggestions provided.

Additional Inquiries from Dr. Macho

Clarification Requests

• Dr. Macho highlights inconsistencies regarding data collection periods versus analysis timelines stated in the thesis title (2015–2026).

Extrapolation Concerns

• He also questions how conclusions drawn from limited geographic responses can be generalized across multiple regions mentioned in the study.

Measurement Discrepancies

Intent vs Action Analysis

• A critical point raised involves measuring entrepreneurial intention versus action; discrepancies between declared intentions and actual measurements are highlighted as problematic.

Deliberation Outcome

Conclusion of Evaluation

• After deliberation, the committee concludes that Jorge’s defense was insufficient; he must return for a second evaluation with improvements made based on feedback received.

Specific Areas Needing Attention

The committee identifies issues such as lack of coherence in temporal dimensions and inadequate validation processes for data used in his research proposal.

Final Remarks

Supportive Closure

• The session ends with encouragement directed towards Jorge, emphasizing that setbacks are part of academic growth and reiterating gratitude towards all participants involved.