Department Of Sociology Final Year Dissertation Guidelines 2011-2012 Sociology; Sociology, Culture and Media; Media Studies; Criminology and Sociology; Applied Psychology and Sociology

B: If your dissertation uses secondary sources and does not involves human participants (if you are doing secondary analysis, analysing media texts or theoretical sources ):

In total your proposal should be 1,500-2,000 words – provide a word count. The exact length of any section is up to you but should not exceed the upper limit given. If you reach the upper limit on one section you will have to remain below the limit on other sections to achieve the final word count.

Your proposal should include the following elements:

Title and Research Questions (up to 250 words)

• 
  Provide a working title that accurately describes the topic of the research.
  
• 
  Clearly outline your research question(s)or aims and the objectives of your project.
  

Background/Conceptual basis (up to 1,000 words)

• 
  Briefly outline appropriate research literature and theoretical concepts which will inform your project.
  
• 
  List 8-10 relevant references that you will draw on (make sure you reference them correctly).
  

Research Design (up to 1,000 words)

• 
  Provide a clear rationale for the research method(s) you have selected including references to research methods texts to explain and justify your choice. Ensure the methods you have selected are appropriate to answer the question you have set yourself.
  
• 
  Discuss the sampling procedure you will use and identify the sample size you hope to achieve, or if using secondary survey data, how the original data was collected and what was the sample size. If you are using documents outline and justify the sources of data you will draw on and explain how you plan to access them (i.e. what search terms you might use to find or delimit your sample). Will your sample be representative? If not, how can you justify the particular sample you have selected?
  
• 
  If you are doing quantitative secondary analysis explain how you will identify and access an appropriate data set. Explain what variables you need to answer your research questions and if possible, include copies of the relevant questions from the original questionnaires (as appendices and not included in the word count). If possible, identify your dependent and independent variables.
  
• 
  What approach will you take to analysing your data?
  
• 
  Outline each stage of the research – think about the practical steps involved in accessing, collecting and analysing your data.
  
• 
  Prepare a timetable outlining when you plan to carry out each stage of your research and how long each component should take.
  

Ethics, Safety and Research Integrity (up to 500 words)

• 
  Are there any particular ethical issues which relate to your research?
  
• 
  If there are any risks involved assess the likelihood of these risks being realised as high, medium or low. Think about how any risks might be mitigated.
  
• 
  Think about how you will ensure the quality and transparency of your analysis. How will you ensure that your research is valid and reliable (think about what these concepts might mean if you are conducting qualitative research)? Are findings from your project generalisable?
  

Proposals will be marked by students’ supervisors and marks moderated by Kate Burningham, Jane Fielding and Katharine Tyler. If your research needs to be considered by the faculty ethics committee then the work you have done in preparing the proposal will help you to complete the ethics form.

Initial Literature Review Assignment:

(1xA4 plan; 1000 word section; bibliography)

This assignment involves preparing an outline of your literature review chapter and a first draft of a section of it. The assignment is due Week 7 of Semester one (15th Nov).

Chapter Outline

Prepare an outline of the sections of the literature review chapter in your dissertation. Indicate areas of literature that will be reviewed, and some examples of sources you will draw on. The outline should be in the form of a list with bullet points or numbered sections and be no longer than one page (see attached example).

Section of chapter

Write one of the sections of your literature review in full. This should be no longer than 1,000 words.

Bibliography

Provide a list of all the references you have drawn on so far in your literature review. Ensure that these are correctly referenced using the Harvard referencing style. See http://learnhigher.ac.uk/Students/Referencing.html where you can download a booklet on the Harvard referencing style. This section is not included in the word count.

The assignment will be marked by students’ supervisors and marks moderated by Kate Burningham, Jane Fielding and Katharine Tyler.

Appendix F
Dissertation Grade Descriptors
In order to attain a mark within a particular class bracket (high 1st,1^st 2.1, 2.2, 3^rd, fail, low fail) dissertations will normally fulfil most of the criteria specified :

Class
1st 80% +	Evidence of highly developed original thinking and creativity (e.g. new formulation of problem, new ideas or criticisms, or an original synthesis of the evidence) Excellent standard of critical analysis of primary and/or secondary data sources Excellent understanding of appropriate conceptual frameworks Excellent understanding and exposition of relevant issues Extremely clear and logically developed arguments Exceptional awareness of nuances and complexities Excellent research design and application of method(s) Excellent understanding of methodological issues Evidence of extensive appropriate academic independent reading and excellent familiarity with the current literature and debates Sophisticated academic style and excellent standard of written grammar, punctuation and spelling. Identifies excellent research question/objective and addresses it extremely clearly and authoritatively Excellent structure and organization Impeccable referencing and citation conventions throughout
1st 70-79%	Evidence of original thinking and creativity (e.g. new formulation of problem, new ideas or criticisms, or an original synthesis of the evidence) Very good standard of critical analysis of primary and/or secondary data sources Very good understanding of appropriate conceptual frameworks Very good understanding and exposition of relevant issues Very clear and logically developed arguments Very good awareness of nuances and complexities Very good research design and application of method(s) Very good understanding of methodological issues Evidence of substantial appropriate academic independent reading and strong overall familiarity with the current literature and debates Sophisticated academic style and very good standard of written grammar, punctuation and spelling Identifies very good research question/objective and addresses it clearly and authoritatively Excellent structure and organization Excellent referencing and citation conventions throughout
2.1 60-69%	High standard of critical analysis of primary and/or secondary data sources Clear awareness and exposition of relevant issues Good understanding of appropriate conceptual frameworks Clearly and logically developed arguments Good awareness of nuances and complexities Good research design and application of method(s) Good understanding of methodological issues Good evidence of appropriate academic independent reading and general familiarity with the current literature and debates Clear academic style and good standard of written grammar, punctuation and spelling Identifies good research question/objective and addresses it clearly for the most part Clear structure and organization Use of acceptable referencing and citation conventions throughout
2.2 50-59%	Attempts analysis of primary and/or secondary data sources but includes some errors and/or omissions Shows some awareness of relevant issues Satisfactory understanding of appropriate conceptual frameworks Appropriate but under-developed arguments Some awareness of nuances and complexities Broadly satisfactory research design and application of method(s) Satisfactory understanding of methodological issues Limited evidence of appropriate academic independent reading Satisfactory standard of clarity through the use of grammar, punctuation and spelling Broadly satisfactory research question/objective which is partially addressedbut tends to be unfocused or descriptive in places Broadly satisfactory structure and organization Broadly satisfactory use of referencing and citation conventions
3^rd 40-49%	Analysis of primary and/or secondary data sources is too descriptive and/or any attempt at analysis is superficial, containing errors and/or omissions Shows limited awareness of relevant issues and also some confusion Weak understanding of appropriate conceptual frameworks Arguments tend to be unclear and/or inconsistent Very little awareness of nuances and complexities Weak research design and application of method(s) Limited understanding of methodological issues Little evidence of appropriate academic independent reading Weak research question/objective identified and addressedPoor standard of grammar, punctuation and spelling Poor structure and organization Poor application of referencing and citation conventions
Fail 25-39%	Very weak analysis of primary and/or secondary data sources or no analysis and several errors and omissions Establishes a few relevant points but superficial and confused exposition of issues Very weak or no understanding of appropriate conceptual frameworks Arguments unclear and/or inconsistent No coherent research design or application of method(s) Poor understanding of methodological issues No evidence of appropriate academic independent reading No clear research question/objective identified or addressed Poor standard of grammar, punctuation and spelling Very poor structure and organization Poor application of referencing and citation conventions
Fail 0-24%	No grasp of analysis of primary and/or secondary data sources and many errors and omissions Little or no relevant points, superficial and confused throughout No appreciation of conceptual frameworks Arguments unclear and/or inconsistent No evidence of appropriate academic independent reading No discernable research design or application of method(s) No understanding of methodological issues No research question/objective identified or addressed Very poor standard of grammar, punctuation and spelling Very poor structure and organization Poor application of referencing and citation conventions OR No submission/work not worthy of assessment