The assessment for this course is based on three elements.
1. Attendance (minimum 80%) and participation on the sessions. No grade will be given for this element.
2. The production of a critical review of one of the review articles (1500 words).
In preparing the review, look again at the questions and issues that have been raised in the documentation for the relevant session and at your own notes from your reading and from the seminar discussion. Please bear in mind that you need to focus on the methodological issues rather than on the rationale or on the substantive findings of the research. The review should identify the key issue or question that the research addresses and delineate the argument that is produced in establishing the claims that are made in respect of this issue or question, concentrating on the evidence that is presented and the way in which this evidence is presented in making the argument. Reviews will need to explore the methodological and theoretical approach adopted in the article and consider the research design and the sampling strategies as well as strategies of data collection and analysis. The review should also consider whether sufficient information is given in the article to address these questions unambiguously. The review should look particularly at the ways in which and the extent to which the author of the article seeks to generalise from their research, particularly in respect of implications for professional practice.
Please note: since all of the articles will have been discussed fully during the course, no feedback will be provided on draft work for this element.
3. The presentation of a dissertation/report research proposal (3500 words).
Please review the notes in the documentation for the second dissertation workshop session. The proposal should begin with a brief statement of the research issue or question, which should be followed by a critical discussion of a small number (perhaps two or three) of relevant research articles; these critical discussions will not, of course, be as extensive as the critical review that forms the first coursework task, but should adopt the same form. The articles discussed should include work relevant to the empirical field of the proposed research, but may also include theoretical work, where this is appropriate. The purpose of this critical discussion is to situate the proposed research within a relevant field of research. Following the critical discussion, the proposal should introduce the general approach to be adopted, for example, it might be stated that the approach will follow a narrative approach and there should be a brief discussion on how this is to be interpreted. The proposal should discuss sampling and data collection and analysis strategies to be deployed, making appropriate reference to the issue of access and also relevant ethical issues. The proposal should, where possible, anticipate difficulties that may arise (sample mortality would be an example). Finally, the proposal should outline how the research might be hoped to contribute to the researcher’s professional and/or academic development.
Feedback will be provided on a 2000 (maximum) word draft of the proposal element provided that it is submitted in time (see deadlines).
A composite grade will be awarded for elements 2 and 3 provided that element 1 has been satisfied.
Please note that, following a decision at a recent course board, work that exceeds the word limit by more than 10% will not be accepted. This applies to both draft work and final submissions.