The meat of a research proposal is the methods section. You have been preparing for the entire… 1 answer below »

The meat of a research proposal is the methods section. You have been preparing for the entire unit to assemble a rigorous, well-justified, feasible, and ethical research design for your proposed study. This proposal ought to resemble the methods section of most scholarly articles in your topic area.

Your task for the third assessment is to (1) write up a thorough and well-justified methods section for your proposed project; (2) discuss how the proposed study is feasible and ethical; and (3) reflect on the strengths and limitations of your proposed study using concepts covered in the course.

These three elements of your assessment task map directly onto the marking rubrics (shown on pp. 4-6 of this document, pp. 16-18 of the unit outline). Criteria 1 and 2 refer to your methods section. Criteria 3 refers to your discussion of feasibility and ethics. Criteria 4 refers to your reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of your research design, drawing on unit’s readings and online content to make your arguments.

Recommended structure:

· Start with a brief (re-)statement of the topic and research question (one paragraph).

· Use the first major section to cover all relevant elements of the research methods. Be sure to both describe and justify your choices. Use headings for the following subsections:

o Research design section: describe whether you have chosen to conduct a quant or qual study, as well as the specific type of quant or qual study (e.g. field survey, quasi-experiment, participant observation, semi-structured interviews).

o Research setting section: describe the setting in which the study will be conducted.

o Participants section: summarize and justify the intended sample, sampling strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria to be used. If planning to use secondary data, consult with your lecturer for slightly revised guidelines.

o Procedure section: summarize and justify how you will collect data, including but not limited to securing organizational access, recruiting participants, maximizing response rates, and collecting data (when, how often, from whom, which variables). If planning to use secondary data, consult with your lecturer for slightly revised guidelines.

o Materials section

§ If quant, list the psychometrically validated measures to be used (if opting to construct your own measure, please consult your lecturer for revised guidelines) and any evidence that the measure is valid.

§ If qual, outline the interview schedule you plan to use (questions, probes) with supporting justification.

§ If using secondary data, describe in detail the indices to be used and any evidence for their validity.

§ Note: Remember that the term ‘valid’ has a precise meaning in research. If you are unsure, consult your lecturer.

o Analysis section – very briefly describe how you would know if your hypothesis were supported (quant, secondary data), or how you would distilldistil answers to your research question from the qualitative data to be collected (qual)

· The second section (2-3 paragraphs) covers feasibility and ethics. Briefly summarize in one paragraph each the practical feasibility and ethical considerations in your study. For the paragraph on ethical considerations, you are expected to: (1) identify possible harms to participants from participating in the study; and (2) explain precisely how you mitigate that harm in your research design. In a separate short paragraph, you may also briefly discuss the implications of your proposed study for practice. Explain exactly how the knowledge generated in your study can be used in the workplace.

· Use the third section (2-4 paragraphs) to summarize both the strengths and limitations of your proposed study, linking back to principles in the unit readings and LEO talks. Just as in the first two assessment tasks, whenever you draw on criteria from unit content, please be explicit.

General guidelines

· Word limit is 2,500 words, maximum. You may use fewer than 2,500 words; that’s not an issue. The word limit excludes references.

· Look to the methods sections of high-quality articles in your area for inspiration. That’s the kind of writing and structure that we are looking for.

· Don’t forget to justify your methodology choices! That’s the entire 2nd criterion of the rubric.

· High-quality writing is important. Researchers need to be understood by the general public. The most important thing is that the writing is organized logically. A few grammatical errors will not be too bad. However, writing that is incomprehensible or lacking logical structure will earn poor marks on the last criterion in the rubric.

Rubric – Assessment task 3 – Proposed research design

ILOs

Criteria

Standards

Below Expectations

Meets Expectations

Exceeds Expectations

Level 1 (e.g. F)

Level 2 (e.g. P)

Level 3 (e.g. C)

Level 4 (e.g. D)

Level 5 (e.g. HD)

1, 4 Comprehensive research design description

(10 Marks)

A description is either lacking almost entirely, or there is a description, but it's very slim, incomplete, and unclear. Most of the elements (e.g., sampling, measurements, research setting) are missing or unspecified. Indicates that student has an unclear, superficial idea about how s/he will proceed to conduct the empirical study.

There is a reasonable description, but it's still far from complete. Some elements are included in the description, but others are still missing. Indicates that student has an sufficient but not in-depth idea of how s/he will proceed to conduct the empirical study.

There is a good description, and it's fairly complete. Many elements are included in the description, but some are still missing. Indicates that student has fairly clear and in-depth idea of how s/he will proceed to conduct the empirical study.

The description is comprehensive and complete, covering most (if not all) elements, and highlighting nuances and complexities. Indicates that student has a clear and in-depth idea of how s/he will proceed to conduct the empirical study.

The description is very comprehensive and complete, covering all elements, clearly highlighting nuances and complexities. Indicates that student has a remarkably clear and in-depth idea of exactly how s/he will proceed to conduct the empirical study.

1, 3, 4 Well-justified research design choices

(10 Marks)

A substantiation of why specific research design choices were made is either lacking almost entirely, or it's very slim, incomplete, and/or unclear. It is based on superficial reasoning, rather than on careful assessment of the research design's strengths, weaknesses, and validity implications. Clearly indicates an insufficient understanding of how research design choices affect one's ability to answer research questions.

There is an adequate substantiation of why specific research design choices were made, but it is far from perfect. An assessment of the research design's strengths, weaknesses, and validity implications is present in some places, but not in others, and/or they're incorrectly applied in some places. Indicates an sufficient understanding of how research design choices affect one's ability to answer research questions.

There is a good substantiation of why specific research design choices were made, and it's fairly complete and comprehensive. An assessment of the research design's strengths, weaknesses, and validity implications is present in many places, but still missing in some places. They're incorrectly applied many but not all places. Indicates a good understanding of how research design choices affect one's ability to answer research questions.

There is a very good substantiation of why specific research design choices were made, and it's complete and comprehensive. An assessment of the research design's strengths, weaknesses, and validity implications is present in most (if not all) places, and they're correctly applied in almost all places as well. Clearly indicates an in-depth understanding of how research design choices affect one's ability to answer research questions.

There is an excellent substantiation of why specific research design choices were made, and it's very complete and comprehensive. An assessment of the research design's strengths, weaknesses, and validity implications is present and correctly in all places. Indicates a remarkably in-depth understanding of how research design choices affect one's ability to answer research questions.

2 Thoughtful practical and ethical considerations

(10 Marks)

A discussion of practical and ethical considerations is almost entirely lacking, or it's very slim, incomplete, and unclear. Most issues are incorrectly identified. Clearly indicates a lack of careful thought about the practical feasibility of the proposed research design. There is an adequate discussion of practical and ethical considerations, but it's still far from complete. Issues are incorrectly identified in some places, but not in others. Indicates sufficiently careful thought about the practical feasibility of the proposed research design.

There is a good discussion of practical and ethical considerations, and it's fairly complete. Issues are correctly identified in many places, although still incorrect in some. Indicates careful thought about the practical feasibility of the proposed research design.

There is a very good discussion of practical and ethical considerations, and it's complete and comprehensive. Issues are correctly identified in most (if not all) places. Indicates very careful thought about the practical feasibility of the proposed research design.

There is an excellent discussion of practical and ethical considerations, and it's very complete and comprehensive. Issues are correctly identified in all places. Indicates remarkably careful thought about the practical feasibility of the proposed research design.

1, 2, 3, 4 Systematic application of concepts and frameworks from the unit's literature

(10 Marks)

Either does not draw on concepts/frameworks from the prescribed literature, or does but uses them in an haphazardous and eclectic manner and/or uses them incorrectly. Clearly indicates insufficient understanding of the prescribed literature. Makes no use of recommended literature.

Regularly draws on the concepts/frameworks from the prescribed literature, but it's still far from ideal. Uses them in some places but not others, and applies them incorrectly in several places. Indicates sufficient understanding of the prescribed literature. Makes no use of recommended literature.

Regularly draws on the concepts/frameworks from the prescribed literature. Uses them consistently in many (but not all) places, but applies them incorrectly in several places. Indicates a good understanding of the prescribed literature. Makes no use of recommended literature.

Frequently draws on the concepts/frameworks from the prescribed literature. Uses them consistently and in a systematic manner, but still applies them incorrectly in a few places. Indicates in-depth understanding of the prescribed literature. Makes some use of recommended literature.

Heavily draws on the concepts/frameworks from the prescribed literature. Uses them consistently and in a systematic manner, and applies them in the correct manner. Indicates remarkably in-depth understanding of the prescribed literature. Complements this with recommended literature.

1 Structure, clarity of expression, visualisation, and referencing

(10 Marks)

Text is chaotic and fails to follow a logical structure. There are many issues with sentence formulation, grammar, spelling and/or punctuation. Makes very little use of visualisations to clarify or organise the content in the text. Referencing is incomplete, is inconsistent and does not follow established guidelines.

The text is adequately (but not optimally) structured. There are some issues with sentence formulation, grammar, spelling and/or punctuation. Makes some use of visualisations to clarify or organise the content in the text. Referencing is fairly complete, but is somewhat inconsistent and does not always follow established guidelines in all places.

The text is logically structured. There are still some issues with sentence formulation, grammar, spelling and/or punctuation. Makes regular use of visualisations to clarify or organise the content in the text, but visualisations are not always meaningful. Referencing is complete, fairly consistent and tends to follow established guidelines in most places.

The text is logically and well-structured. There are only a few issues with sentence formulation, grammar, spelling and/or punctuation. Makes use visualisations to clarify or organise the content in the text in meaningful ways. Referencing is complete, consistent and follows established guidelines.

The text is highly logically and well-structured. There are virtually no issues with sentence formulation, grammar, spelling and/or punctuation. Makes very effective use visualisations to clarify or organise the content in the text in meaningful ways. Referencing is complete, consistent and follows established guidelines.

“Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us”
Use the following coupon
FIRST15

Order Now