Assignment brief:
The assignment is a research proposal for your dissertation

Marking Criteria

1. A clear definition of the problem.
Clear objectives and parameters of the research. Say why the problem is important and where the boundaries of the research stop. Discussions with staff are essential at an early stage to ensure this.

2. A review that both describes the research situation and reviews what is known about the problem.
Think of this as ‘what we know about the problem so far’. The material reviewed has to be structured to meet yourobjectives rather than by author. In the proposal show that you are aware of the most important background material, and that this can provide a platform for you to work from, but the review in your final dissertation will probably cover additional material and will cover it in more depth. The review has to demonstrate a critical approach which considers the validity of previous work. It may also cover the methods used by previous research, as these may have implications for your own.

3. A ‘vertical thread’ between the objectives, review and methods.
This means that there will be a logical connection between the objectives, review and methods.
For example; if your problem requires a quantitative approach to data collection this will be reflected in your choice of methods. If you use questionnaires, construction and administration may be designed both to meet your objectives and to make your data comparable with some of that in the review. Your method of questionnaire sampling and administration will reflect the conduct of research in the review.
Or, if your problem is qualitative you would need to consider if you needed to use interviews, focus groups, or other qualitative methods. Sampling of interviewees, the choice of an open or closed interview structure, and the issues covered in your structure, would again reflect material in the review.

This means that the description of the background to the research and the review has to be sufficient to allow the reader to see the logical connections between these and the methods.

4. The use of research methods theory
As this proposal examines learning from the Research Methods module you should justify the methods you have chosen but also why you have rejected others. This demonstrates a broader appreciation of the theory on the module. (In your dissertation you are advised to take a more direct approach of just justifying what you are going to do.) Reference research methods texts where they have helped you clarify your ideas. Do not slavishly reproduce chunks of research methods text books – you have to explain your reasoning in your own words to be given credit for it. Do not ‘cut and paste’ descriptions of the methods in example proposals on the web site.

5. Details of research tools
Drafts of questionnaires, interview schedules or other tools should be in appendices. They show you have thought through the research in sufficient detail at this stage - but they may well still be modified later. Remember to cross reference them to the main text to justify their design.#p#分頁標題#e#

6. Practicality
Convince the reader that it will work. Difficulties may include co-operation of key brokers and stakeholders, access to secondary data, administration of questionnaires, the time of year, time scale for the research, resources available, etc. Each dissertation presents unique potential problems. If you decide it is not practical you may be able to go back to your objectives and modify them while keeping the same topic area. A record of contact with your supervisor and brokers/stakeholders is required in an appendix.

7. A timetable
A timetable for the research should be included in an appendix. Include: typing, proof reading and binding. More detailed proof reading (to check the meaning rather than just specific words) is recommended if English is not your first language. It is sensible to allow a couple of weeks ‘contingency time’ in case any unforeseen problems come up. If they don’t, have a holiday!

8. Structure and clarity of presentation

9. Ethics policy compliance

Complete the ethics form, which you can find at:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/03/25/85/ethics_URECapp_vs2.doc
Discuss it with your supervisor and attach it to your proposal.

Submission checklist
Your assignment should include;
• Account of objectives, background and methods: - the main part of the proposal.
• References used.
• In appendices: completed ethics form; record of meetings with staff and brokers/stakeholders; draft research methods tools, and a timetable.

Word limit: 3500 words. For every 1% (or part thereof) of the length of a submissions above the word limit there will be a penalty applied of a reduction of 1 mark, in absolute terms, from the percentage mark given for that particular piece of work.
The word count applies to the main text, references within the text and quotations. It does not include the title of the assignment, the list of references at the end of the assignment, appendices, and tables of supporting data.

Your word count on the submitted assignment should relate to the main text, references within the text and quotations.

(Note that while a word limit is applied in this module, this may not be the case in other modules, including the dissertation)

Submission
You are required to submit two hard copies of your proposal to the postgraduate office and one copy to turnitin. The turnitin copy has to be submitted on the same day as the hard copies. If it is submitted after this date a late submission penalty will apply. This is because we need to be able to check the proposal through turnitin at the same time as it is marked.

Marking
The proposal will be marked by a first marker who is not your supervisor. A sample of proposals will be second marked by the module leader. Failed proposals will then be marked by the supervisor as well, to ensure that you have not been penalised for following advice your supervisor gave you. All marks will be approved by supervisors.#p#分頁標題#e#

If you have to resubmit your proposal the resubmission will be marked by the first marker and by your supervisor.

Marking sheet for use with dissertation proposals

Criteria and comments
Clear objectives and parameters of the research
Review: applied and critical
Methods: justified, practical and detailed
Logical connection between the objectives, review and methods.
Referencing
Overall comments
Appendices – check list:
• ethics form
• record of meetings with staff and brokers/stakeholders
• draft research methods tools
• timetable.
Marker 1st / 2nd
Mark (awarded after second marking – moderation if appropriate)
Supervisor’s approval of mark