7MG001 Portfolio Research Project Proposal of Tasks

TASK 1 Research Proposal

Student Name:

Student ID:

Provisional Topic Title:

 

Proposal structurally approved by the workshop tutor: Yes/No

(Your workshop tutor may wish to check that you had done sufficient work on the proposal and that it is of “fit state” to be forwarded to your supervisor)

 

Aims/objectives of the research followed by research questions:

Provide a brief introduction/context to your topic; state your overall aim, objectives regarding how the chapters of the dissertation will contribute to the aim and plausible research questions (600 words)

Brief Literature Review:

Explain how your research fits into existing published work. Do this by locating and critically reviewing about 10-12 sources of information (references) connected to the work you propose to do and show how your research aims/questions intend to fill any gap or extend knowledge. Refer to your research methods module and compare and contrast this information with what you intend to do and with your research approach. Approximately 8-10 of these references must be academic publications, from refereed journals, which will be found in our online databases, a list of refereed journals are contained in the module Canvas page.  Do not use books in this section. (1200 words)

 

Methodology:

Explain how you are going to answer your research questions, i.e., explain your philosophy, methodology, and methods including sample information, justify the methods to be employed and critically review the methodology/approaches you are intending to take referring to ethics and validity and reliability (800 words)

Resources you need/Access to primary and secondary data:

Explain what resources you will need, what resources you have access to, and what specific access to organizations you have secured for the collection of primary data (400 words)

Project Schedule

Use the template below and fill in the due dates so that you and your supervisor can map out your journey. Allocate 4-6 weeks each for stages 1 and 3. It is recommended that you prepare the final draft one month prior to the submission date as your supervisor may wish to review it. You are encouraged to meet with your supervisor regularly to gain feedback at stages 1 to 3, each supervisor will advise you on their preferred supervision pattern.

Steps	Description	Due date
1	Preparation Stage
	Week -1-2: Area of interest identified
	Weeks 3-4: Topic selected/form submitted
	Weeks 4-5: Topic refined to develop dissertation proposal
	Weeks 5-8: Proposal written and submitted
2	Chapters 1-3 completed
	Chapter 1 Draft Introduction completed
	Chapter 2 Draft Literature Review completed
	Chapter 3 Draft Research Methodology completed
3	Collection of data and information
	Data analysis and Interpretation of data
	Chap 4 Draft Results, Analysis and Discussion completed
	Chapter 5 Draft Conclusions, Implications & recommendations
4	Final Writing up
	Structure, presentation and proof reading
5	Final Stage
	Final proof reading, printing and binding
6	Submission of Project  (Canvas and hard copy submission)

References

Please make sure you only include sources you have cited above and that each source fully complies with Harvard referencing requirements. The references should include at least 8-10 journal articles from refereed journals, preferably more.

RESEARCH PROJECT PROPOSAL

SUPERVISOR EVALUATION GRID/FEEDBACK SHEET

Student to fill in personal details below and having read the ethical guidelines, confirm project is category A (below) and upload along with the proposal form.

NB. It is preferable to discuss your proposal with your supervisor as soon as possible, although not a per-requisite in order to pass the portfolio.

Student name(s):
Student no:
Supervisor:

 

Evaluation	Summary Feedback
Excellent: Approved to proceed	Compelling proposal, persuasively outlining a well thought through, feasible and relevant research study.
Very Good: Approved to proceed	Clear and specific about research question, project design and research methods. These three elements are shown to be well co-ordinated.
Good: Approved to proceed	Well-defined research question. Sensible project design and clear plans for conducting the research.
Competent: Approved to proceed	Clear research question. Explicit ideas on design and methods but there are some issues about the fit between question, design and methods.
Borderline: Improvement required; resubmit to supervisor; Not yet approved.	Identifies an interesting topic, but the research question is very broad and the details of the project are hazy. Arrange meeting with Supervisor a.s.a.p.
Unsatisfactory: Major improvement required; resubmit to supervisor; not yet approved to proceed.	The focus, purpose and method of the project are not made clear to the reader. Arrange meeting with Supervisor a.s.a.p.

 

 

Application for Ethical Approval:

Is this a proposal for Category A or Category B project? 

(To completed by student)

If it is Category A, do you recommend that approval be given?           

(To be completed by the supervisor)

If No, please give reason(s)

	Distinction	Merit	Pass	Fail	Fail
Significance (10%)	Project is original in its approach and will contribute to discipline development. Significance emerges logically from construction of argument in addition to being clearly articulated.	Project is justified and will consolidate understanding in discipline. Significance emerges from construction of argument in addition to being articulated.	Project is relevant and will consolidate student’s understanding of discipline. Significance does not emerge easily in argument but it is evident in addition to being outlined.	Project replicates well-established understanding in discipline. Significance is stated but does not emerge from argument.	Project is too simplistic or disorganised to offer any significance.
Aims and objectives (15%)	Aims and objectives are concisely elaborated. Original and highly relevant hypotheses or research questions are clearly articulated (if appropriate).	Aims and objectives are well selected. Clearly relevant hypotheses or research questions are determined (if appropriate).	Aims and objectives are identified. Relevant hypotheses or research questions outlined, but could be tighter in their focus (if appropriate).	Aims and objectives are described in broad terms only. Hypotheses and research questions outlined but lacking in clarity or focus (if appropriate).	Aims, objectives or hypotheses/research questions are missing or so poorly written meaning is unclear (if appropriate).
Literature review (30%)	Creative and highly organised literature review that outlines the background and context for the research project. Critical reading of the key literature clearly evident throughout.	Well-argued and logical literature review that provides a good overview of the background and context for the research project. Evaluation of key literature quite evident throughout.	Good range of literature examined throughout presentation that is mostly relevant to the project’s background and context. Key studies contrasted but little evidence of evaluation.	Points are supported with relevant literature, but scope of literature review is limited, as is background and context for project. Some key studies not referred to at all or only inferred.	The quality of the literature referred to is questionable or not relevant to the project’s background or context. Few key studies referred to.
Methodology (30%)	Creative and highly appropriate methodology is clearly articulated and justified.	Methodology is well argued and justified.	Methodology is explained and appropriate for the project.	An appropriate methodology is broadly outlined, but details are not always clear.	The methodology is either not appropriate for the project or is poorly articulated suggesting deficits in understanding.
Referencing (10%)	In-text and reference list consistently adhere to Harvard system throughout. High ranked journal sources  which are comprehensive and relevant	In-text and reference list adhere to a single Harvard system with 1 or 2 errors. More than at least 10 references from ranked journals	In-text and reference list adhere to a single Harvard system with 3 or 4 errors. At least 10 references from journals	In-text and reference list adhere to a single Harvard system with 5 or 6 errors.	In-text and reference list do not adhere to the same Author-date system or there are more than 7 errors.
Presentation (5%)	Proposal is logical in its construction with no spelling, punctuation or grammatical errors.	Proposal is mostly logical in its construction with 1 or 2 consistent spelling, punctuation or grammatical errors.	Proposal is relatively easy to follow with 3 or 4 consistent spelling, punctuation or grammatical errors.	Proposal has all components, but is not logical in its construction or has a numerous inconsistent spelling, punctuation or grammatical errors.	Aspects of the proposal are missing or so poorly written due to numerous spelling, punctuation or grammatical errors so meaning is unclear.

 

Task 2: Ethical Issues

Identify and analyse 3 major ethical issues relating to preparing, planning and undertaking a research project at the UK University. (Approx. 1,500 words academic report style using the template provided).

Task 3:  Research Philosophy

 

Critically evaluate the choices regarding research philosophy; this should include examining the importance of understanding research approaches at the master’s level. (Approx. 1,500 words academic report style using the template provided)