联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981

Methodologies:
Researching media, culture, and society

Assessment 2: Research Proposal
50% of the mark for the module

Your task is to complete a 2,000-word (-/+5%) research plan in relation to your proposed dissertation. This should include clearly articulated research question or questions, a theoretical framework, a proposed method, ethical considerations and a working bibliography.

To make sure your proposal is well-organised, use the following headings:

1. Dissertation working title

2. Introduction
A brief introduction to the research project which should include:
a) What you propose to do/discover/analyse,
b) Your interest in it,
c) Its importance,
d) Its context and scope.

3. Key research questions
List of 2-3 preliminary research questions (what do you hope to discover )

4. Background to the project and its significance
Brief discussion of existing literature/material in the area and your approach to it– particularly important texts you have been influenced by and how you will draw on and extend them What contribution to existing knowledge will this research make

5. Theoretical framework
What theoretical or interpretive framework will guide the project Key theories/authors to be employed and how (It may be feasible to combine sections 4 & 5).

6. Research plan, methods and techniques
An outline of your research methodology which should include:

a)How do you plan to carry out your research,

b)What key methods, or combination of methods, you will employ (i.e. case studies, interviews, surveys, focus groups, audience research, content analysis, discourse analysis, online methodologies, etc.). Remember that your research questions should determine your methods. How will your methods enable you to address your key research questions Ensure that your methods are compatible with your theoretical framework.

c)Sources: What materials will you use, and how will you negotiate access to these sources

7. Research timetable (plan of month-by-month activities)
This can be presented in table format.

8. Ethical issues
A brief discussion of key ethical issues or dilemmas you are likely to encounter in the course of your research and how you plan to negotiate them (i.e. does your research involve human subjects or sensitive topics How will you gain informed consent from research participants ). This may also include reference to methodological issues in terms of the practices and politics of research: For example, what is your own location/position and status in relation to the topic; what do YOU bring to the study, as a ‘researcher’; what are the power relations between you and the people/subjects you are studying and how do you plan to address these

9. Conclusion
What you expect to come out of this research (reiterate) Which contexts it might be useful in (for whom) What further research do you imagine might be necessary

10. Working bibliography
A working list of key sources in the field you expect to consult (not included in the word count) formatted according to Harvard Referencing System.

Deadlines and Return of Marks
Submit your work for all assessment before or on the day of the deadline, before 4pm. Do not aim to submit at 4pm.

Description Deadline Percentage of the mark for the module Submission mode Deadline for mark and feedback to students
Assessment 2 Tuesday, 13th Jan 2023 50% Submit via Canvas 10th Feb 2023

Submission Procedure
Assessments must be submitted electronically through Canvas before 4pm on the day of the deadline. As the submission process can take some time, leave plenty of time for this; aim to submit no later than 3.50. Submission works as follows:
Title your document with the module code and your student number as follows: MCH8058_123456789.
Go to the module’s Canvas site and find the ‘Assignments’ area.
Select the appropriate assignment.
Click ‘Submit Assignment’.
In the resulting dialogue box, use the ‘Choose file’ and ‘Add another file’ buttons to select the files you wish to submit. Canvas has a 5GB file size limit, so it is unlikely that your file/s will be too big to upload. There will no opportunity to preview your files before submission, so be very careful at this stage that you have selected the right file/s.
Tick the box accompanied by the text ‘I agree to the tools End-User License Agreement. This assignment submission is my own, original work’.
Click ‘Submit Assignment’.
If you have successfully submitted your assignment, this submission page will change to display a ‘Submission’ column of text on the right showing the word ‘Submitted!’ and the date and time submitted. If you have successfully submitted, the ‘Submit Assignment’ button will have changed to a ‘Re-submit Assignment’ button (which may or may not be clickable depending on whether re-submission is permitted for this assessment). If this has not happened, you have not submitted your work and should try again. If you need to provide evidence that you have submitted, simply re-visit the relevant submission page and take a screenshot so as to include the ‘Submitted!’ etc. text.

Criteria of Assessment for Essays and other scholarly work (taught postgraduate level)
Note: The guidance notes under ‘Assessment’ (above) will also be taken into consideration.
Classmark → Low Fail
0-45 High Fail
45-49 Pass
50-59 Merit
60-69 Distinction
Criteria ↓ 70-79 80-89 90-100
Knowledge & Understanding Range of primary and secondary material discussed Evidence of having studied few or no relevant materials. Evidence of having studied a very narrow range of material. Relies on a limited number of sources and stays entirely with materials covered in teaching. Evidence of having studied a reasonable range of material. Stays largely within materials covered in teaching but uses some recommended materials. Evidence of having studied a wide range of material. Goes some way beyond material covered in teaching, using a wide range of recommended materials. Evidence of having studied an ambitious in range of material. Considerably exceeds material covered in teaching. Introduces material found through independent study. Evidence of having studied an exceptional range of material. Evidence of having studied an outstanding range of material.
Demonstration of understanding Shows little or no understanding of relevant concepts. Shows limited understanding of basic concepts. Shows reasonable understanding of some complex concepts. Shows good understanding of a reasonable number of complex concepts. Shows excellent understanding of a good range of complex concepts. Either the range or the understanding of complex concepts is exceptional. Shows exceptional understanding of a wide range of complex concepts.
Research, Argument & Critical Thinking Critical analysis No critical analysis. No awareness of the strengths/ limitations of the material used. Almost entirely descriptive with very little critical comment. Little awareness of the strengths/ limitations of the material used. Largely descriptive with little critical comment. Some awareness of the strengths/ limitations of the material used. Some good critical analysis. Good awareness of the strengths/ limitations of the material used. Independent critical analysis. Excellent recognition of the strengths/ limitations of the material used. Exceptional critical analysis. Insight is provided into trends in the strengths/ limitations of the material used. Outstanding critical analysis. Publication-quality understanding of strengths/ limitations of the material used.
Quality and use of evidence/data The argument is based on very little or no appropriate evidence. Little to no judgement is exhibited in use of evidence. The argument uses little evidence or inappropriate evidence. Limited judgement is exhibited in use of evidence. Sufficient appropriate evidence is presented to achieve the aims and objectives of the assignment. Reasonable judgement is exhibited in use of evidence. The argument is well-supported by a good body of appropriate evidence. Good judgement is exhibited in use of evidence. The argument is supported very well by a substantial body of well-chosen evidence. Skill and confidence are exhibited in use of evidence. Evidence of exceptional breadth or depth is presented to support the argument. Sophisticated judgement is applied in using this evidence. Evidence of exceptional breadth and depth is presented to support the argument. Outstanding judgement is applied in using this evidence.
Independence and originality of thought in connecting ideas Little to no marshalling of ideas. No linkages are established. Argument is absent or very poor. Limited marshalling of ideas. Few or no linkages are established, leading to a weak argument. Reasonable marshalling of ideas; some linkages are established. Argument is reasonable. Disparate ideas are pulled together effectively. The work establishes robust linkages. Argument is well-developed. Independent and original synthesis of ideas. An excellent, persuasive argument. Exceptional synthesis of ideas. Argument is worthy of publication with revisions. Outstanding synthesis of ideas. Argument merits publication with few or no revisions.
Execution Organisation of content Little or no indication of a structured discussion. Careless or confused structure. Reasonable structure. A well-organised discussion with a clear structure. A clear and concise structure that contributes very well to the discussion. Organisation is exceptionally reader-friendly. Organisation is beyond improvement.
Layout of document and accuracy of referencing Very poor layout. Very poor referencing. Insufficient care is taken in layout and in referencing. Reasonable care is taken in layout and in referencing. A high level of care is taken in layout and in referencing. Excellent care is taken in layout and in referencing. Layout and referencing are both flawless. Layout demonstrates creativity. Referencing is flawless.
Clarity and fluency of expression Entirely or largely unclear and lacking in fluency. More than half of the expression is unclear; the work has few fluent elements. At least half of the work is clearly expressed; the work has some fluent elements. The majority of the work is clearly expressed in fluent language. With no more than minor exceptions, the work is clearly expressed in fluent language. The whole work is clearly expressed in fluent language. The whole work is efficiently and expertly expressed in highly fluent language.

Assessment Criteria for Practical work (taught postgraduate level)
Note: The guidance notes under ‘Assessment’ (above) will also be taken into consideration.
Classmark → Low Fail
0-44 High Fail
45-49 Pass
50-59 Merit
60-69 Distinction
Criteria ↓ 70-79 80-89 90-100
Writing skills Planning & Newsgathering Evidence of having conducted little or no research. Poor story idea and treatment. Content demonstrates no, or very limited, awareness of the need to access a range of relevant, authoritative, and, where appropriate, diverse interviewees/sources. Evidence of having conducted minimal relevant research. Inadequate story idea and treatment. Content demonstrates a limited awareness of the need to access a range of relevant, authoritative and, where appropriate, diverse interviewees/sources. Evidence of having conducted a reasonable level of appropriate research. Suitable story idea and treatment. Content demonstrates a satisfactory awareness of the need to access a range of relevant, authoritative and, where appropriate, diverse interviewees/sources. Evidence of very good original research. Appropriate story ideas and treatment. Content demonstrates a very good awareness of the need to access a range of relevant, authoritative and, where appropriate, diverse interviewees/sources. Evidence of excellent original research. Highly appropriate story ideas and treatment. Content demonstrates an excellent awareness of the need to access a range of relevant, authoritative and, where appropriate, diverse interviewees/sources. Evidence of exceptional original research. Highly appropriate and professionally executed story ideas and treatment. Content demonstrates an exceptional awareness of the need to access a range of relevant, authoritative and, where appropriate, diverse interviewees/sources. Evidence of outstanding original research. Highly appropriate and professionally executed story ideas and flawless treatment. Content demonstrates an outstanding awareness of the need to access a range of relevant, authoritative and, where appropriate, diverse interviewees/sources.
Story-telling techniques Poor use of story-telling techniques with major flaws. Inadequate use of story-telling techniques with several flaws. Appropriate story-telling techniques but with some flaws. Very good story-telling techniques with few flaws. Excellent storytelling techniques with minor flaws. Exceptional storytelling techniques with no flaws. Outstanding storytelling techniques with no flaws and of professional standard.
Editorial judgement Scripts/text not more than tokenistically tailored to the chosen medium. Content does not match audience requirements. Some inaccuracies, legal or ethical issues. Little or no journalistic balance. Scripts/text not always tailored to the chosen medium. Some content appropriate to audience. Not all sections are accurate, balanced or meet legal and ethical standards of the profession. Scripts/text demonstrate some awareness of needs of chosen medium. Content is broadly appropriate to audience. Mostly accurate and/or balanced. Meets legal and ethical standards of the profession. Scripts/text are well-written and appropriate for chosen medium. Content is appropriate to audience. Accurate, balanced, and meets legal and ethical standards of the profession. Scripts/text are of a high standard, and highly appropriate for chosen medium. Content is highly appropriate to audience. Accurate, balanced, and meets legal and ethical standards of the profession. Scripts/text are of an exceptional standard, and highly appropriate for chosen medium. Content is highly appropriate to audience with minimal scope for improvement. Accurate, balanced, and meets legal and ethical standards of the profession. Scripts/text are of an outstanding standard, and highly appropriate for chosen medium. Content is highly appropriate to audience and is beyond improvement. Accurate, balanced, and meets legal and ethical standards of the profession.
Production and technical skills Work shows little or no understanding of production techniques e.g. poor shots and framing with incoherent edits. Work is inadequate with careless or confused use of production techniques e.g. some inappropriate shots and framing, unclear edits. Work is of a satisfactory standard with a reasonable execution of production techniques e.g. appropriate shots and framing, some inconsistent edits. Work is of a high standard with strong use of production techniques, e.g. good shots, mostly well framed and fluent edits; creative production; mostly optimised for chosen mode of publication. Work is of professional or near-professional quality, with optimal use of production techniques, e.g. well-framed shots, excellent edits, highly creative production, work optimised for chosen mode of publication. Work is of professional quality, with optimal use of production techniques, e.g. creatively framed shots, exceptional edits, highly creative production, work maximised for chosen mode of publication. Work is of outstanding professional quality, with optimal use of production techniques, e.g. shots are perfectly framed, flawless edits, exceptionally creative production, work maximised for chosen mode of publication.
Presentation skills Little effort put into presentation & voice. Careless or confused presentation with a lack of clarity in voice. Competent presentation and clear voice. Very good presentation & clearly articulated voice. Excellent presentation & voice, of near-professional standard. Exceptional presentation & voice, of professional standard. Could be broadcast or published with no or very few alterations. Outstanding presentation & voice, of highly professional standard. Could be broadcast or published with no alterations.