285104 Research & Analysis 2010 handbook v3

285104 Research and Analysis Handbook 2010 of 19

TE TARI PUTAIAO-A-IWI

285104

RESEARCH & ANALYSIS BACHELOR OF ARTS

SEMESTER 1 2010

CRISTINA PARRA

Should we let truth get in the way of a good story?

Copyright © 2010 Auckland University of Technology. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the Auckland University of

Technology

285104 Research and Analysis Handbook 2010 Page 1 of 19

285104 THE PAPER

PRESCRIPTOR:

Equips students with a range of research skills. Provides an understanding of library and Internet research processes. Develops the ability to access basic social data that includes accessing and down-loading electronic databases. Introduces basic statistical concepts to facilitate the interpretation of social data. Develops data presentation skills. Introduces fundamental research concepts to enable students to develop critical thinking and analytical skills.

ON COMPLETION OF THIS PAPER, SUCCESSFUL STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO:

Tested partly in Conduct a basic literature search using library and internet; Assign1 Access data bases; Assign1 Access research-based material and reports; Assign1 Interpret basic statistical reports; Assign2 Present data in appropriate form, e.g. tables, charts, graphs; Assign2 Critically analyse research reports and research-based material; Assign1, Quizzes Recognise and reproduce the key elements of academic writing; Assign1, Assign2 Write a report using correct format and referencing; and Assign2 Complete a full literature review Assign1

Summary of Goals To achieve this goal you will need:

To critically analyse research To learn the scientific AND the ethical criteria used to assess research in academic settings

To learn the differences between aims and methods of ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ research

To acquire basic statistical concepts

To learn to use descriptive statistics, including

• Choosing the right descriptive statistics for the level of measurement, which implies learning

• Measurement theory

• Concepts of validity and reliability

To learn the basics of academic writing

To learn the structure, purpose and style of literature reviews, research reports and research essays

To learn proper referencing:

• To avoid plagiarism and unsupported claims

• To apply APA referencing style

To do a literature review To learn strategies for searching electronic databases

To learn to judge the quality of publications found

To apply the scientific and ethical criteria you have learned


WHAT YOU WILL NEED TO DO TO COMPLETE THIS PAPER

ATTEND ALL LECTURES AND TUTORIALS AND STUDY:

Lectures are held Thu 10-12. See your personal timetable on Arion for tutorial times and venues. You will need an additional EIGHT hours each week to keep up with readings and to do the quizzes and assignments.

You will also need to attend one whole Saturday in May for Assignment 2.

COMPLETE ALL ASSIGNMENTS

1. Quizzes A minimum 6 of the 10 weekly online quizzes (6 x 5%)

2. Assignment 1 Evaluation of a research report (40%) due Friday 23 April 10 AM

3. Assignment 2 Lab report of Data collection and analysis (30%)

Note: Assign 2 will be done in one day, a Saturday in May – either May 8, 15 or 22. You will be asked to sign up for one of these dates at the 1st lecture. Regardless of which Saturday you attend, your report will be due on the 28 May at 4 PM

READ THE TEXTBOOK - AND ANY OTHER ASSIGNED READINGS:

McIntyre, L. J. (2005). Need to know: Social science research methods. McGraw Hill.

This textbook will be useful to you also for any future research projects, when you need to remind yourself of all the useful things learned in this paper. It is available to purchase from the bookshop on campus, and has been put on course reserve at the Library. Additional readings will be put on AUTOnline

Detailed instructions for each assignment can be found from page 7 onwards.

WHO’S WHO AND WHERE TO GET HOLD OF THEM

Paper coordinator and lecturer Cristina Parra, obtained her MSc (Psychology) and PhD (Clinical Psychology) from Uppsala University in Sweden. The focus of her PhD was social anxiety, which led her to theories about social defence systems, the establishment of social hierarchies and social identity development. Her current research interests include the resolution of culture conflict in second-generation immigrants, and the development of ethnic and national identities. She taught at the University of Auckland for several years and worked as Clinical Trials Manager for a biotech company before coming to AUT

Room: WT1440, AUT Tower

E-mail: [email protected]

Phone: 921 9999 ext 8578

Office hours: Wed and Thu, 12-1 PM


Tutor Jeanie Benson is currently completing her PhD Intercultural mirrors: East and South East Asian international students reflect on life in Aotearoa/New Zealand as they sojourn at university. She has also completed and published a range of media studies in Aotearoa/New Zealand on Asian representation in the press and the many associations in mainstream media with gambling, corruption and crime. One of her special interests is in qualitative research methods and research partnerships. She is an experienced tutor, will help students get the best from this course, and she is looking forward to meeting and working with you. Please feel free to email her with your questions.

Room: WT1435

E-mail: [email protected]

Phone: 921 9999 ext. 8314

Office hours: TBA

LECTURE AND TUTORIAL TIMETABLE – PLUS READINGS

Lecture topics and readings Tutorial activities Quiz

WEEK 1

4/3

Introduction to paper and assignments. What science is and why you need to know The scientific enterprise – making up your mind – objectivity, inter-subjectivity

Readings: Ch 1 & 2

TUTORIAL 1 Discuss: How is knowledge different from “just beliefs”? Why do we not teach Mäori science alongside Western science? Who gets to decide and why?

WEEK 2

11/3

Categories vs. variables (qualities vs. quantities) levels of measurement Validity and reliability of operational definitions, hypotheses

Reading: Ch 4

TUTORIAL 2 Review Ch 1, 2 & 4

Formulate operational definitions and hypotheses about relationships between variables

Q1

Ch2

WEEK 3

18/3

Ethics1 – basic requirements Reading: Ch 5

Information literacy, literature search strategies. Judging publications and authors Instructions Assignment 1 & Turnitin

TUTORIAL 3 IN LAB Find the research report to evaluate for Assignment 1. Find good background articles. Save literature search history. Start / use personal Endnote library with APA referencing Turnitin

Q2

Ch4

WEEK 4

25/3

Sampling Elements of research design 1 Types of research, research design, threats to validity (construct & content validity)

Readings: Ch 6 & 7

TUTORIAL 4 Revision chapters 5 to 7 Demo of database downloads Assignment 1 – everybody on track?

Q3

Ch5

WEEK 5

1/4

Elements of research design 2 Methods of data collection – direct vs indirect, structured vs unstructured, Experiments – internal vs external validity

Readings: Ch 7 & 8

TUTORIAL 5 (and last one!)

Q4

Ch6

BREAK 2-16 April


LECTURE AND TUTORIAL TIMETABLE – PLUS READINGS CONTINUED

WEEK 6

22/4

Survey research Readings: Ch 9 & 10

No tutorials this week Q5

Ch7

Assign 1 (40%) Evaluation of Research Report - due Fri 23 April 10 AM

WEEK 7

29/4

How to write a literature review, logic of APA referencing style

No tutorials this week Q6

Ch9

WEEK 8

6/5

Levels of measurement (again), descriptive stats. Tables and graphs Unobtrusive research & Coding sheets. How to write a research report

Reading: Ch 11 Instructions Assignment 2

No tutorials this week First Saturday Assignment 2

8 May

Q7

Ch10

WEEK 9

13/5

Ethics 2 – who benefits? Emancipatory research, action research, indigenous knowledge, intellectual property

No tutorials this week Second Saturday Assignment 2

15 May

Q8

Ch11

WEEK 10

20/5

Qualitative research 1: Overview of qualitative approach, strategies and issues

Reading: Ch12

No tutorials this week Second Saturday Assignment 2

22 May

Q9

Stats

Assignment 2 (30%) Research reports due 28 May at 4 PM

WEEK 11

27/5

Qualitative research 2: General methodological guidelines, credibility, transferability, dependability, authenticity

No tutorials this week LAST

Q10

Ch12 WEEK

12 3/6

Qualitative research 3: focus groups, film analysis

No tutorials this week


ASSIGNMENT 1 EVALUATION OF RESEARCH ARTICLE (MINI-LITERATURE REVIEW)

Your task for this assignment: Write an evaluation of one research report published in a peer-reviewed journal preferably in the subject area of your major (e.g. marketing, public relations, management, criminology, psychology, sociology, political science) according to scientific and ethical criteria taught in this paper. To give more background and to allow for comparison, read and make reference to at least two more academic publications about the same topic as the article evaluated.

This assignment will contribute 40% towards your final mark for this paper, and it is due Friday 23 April at 4 pm.

Your literature search history (listing the terms you searched on, in the order you used them, and the number of hits you got on each) must be provided in an appendix. In your search history you will need to demonstrate choice of relevant key words and appropriate use of advanced search techniques.

Articles chosen must be available online to marker. It is expected that you will need several hours to find suitable reports for this task, so do start this assignment on week 4 at the latest.

A suitable report to evaluate otherwise is one you actually want to read in depth (!), addressing a research question you actually care about (!!) – and which is not too long - between four and ten pages.

How do you know for sure it is a research report? It will have a Methods section.

You have to submit to Turnitin within 48 hours of handing in your hardcopy, or your assignment will not be marked at all.

This assignment should not be longer than 2000-2100 words (i.e. less than four pages)

MORE DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS:

Start with a paragraph introducing reader to topic and/or research question, and justifying it. Reader needs to know what the issue is, and why anyone would bother doing research on it. Ideas on how to justify your choice of topic can be gathered from the introductions to the articles you have read – but do not forget to acknowledge these as your sources.

Second paragraph should be a short description of the article you are about to evaluate. The emphasis here is on accuracy: you need to show that you have understood correctly what you are about to evaluate. Describe both what the author(s) looked at and how, in addition to what they found. So, make sure you identify the variables and their operational definitions, and describe the design of the study, as well as the findings.

The bulk of your assignment should follow, in the form of at least three points (suitably presented in separate paragraphs) you want to make about the report you read. The three aspects you will need to look at (preferably in comparison to the other two articles you have read and based on your textbook) are the validity of operational definitions, their reliability (data collection methods in particular), and the ethics of the research. You do not have to point out things that have been done badly (you may not find any, there is a reason the research got published), you can also highlight particularly good things. Just remember that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ for the purposes of this assignment mean ethically and/or scientifically good/bad.

• The basic validity question: Are the researchers looking at / measuring what they claim to be looking at/ measuring? And is that really what they should be looking at in order to get at what they need to know? Is their operational definition valid?


• The basic reliability question: If someone else was to look at this / measure this in the same way (using the same data collection instrument), would they get the same results, find the same thing?

• The basic ethics question: Does the knowledge to be gained by this research make the risks and costs involved worthwhile?

Finish with a conclusion, based on your evaluation, specifying whether more research needs to be done on this topic/question, or if the report evaluated provided a satisfactory (however temporary) answer that other researchers can take as a starting point to expand research in other directions .

You are not expected to provide a true state-of-the-art review of all relevant research to justify further research which would need to be done for real. However, you are expected to draw your conclusions from the evaluation you have just provided, and not just pull them out of the hat. You will be expressing your opinions, but these opinions need to be presented in a structured manner, and to result from the application of scientific and ethical criteria which are relevant – just saying that in your personal opinion a piece of research is no good does not constitute a critical analysis.

WHY YOU SHOULD BOTHER WITH THIS ASSIGNMENT (OR WHY IT IS WORTH 40%)

Assignment 1 contributes to your achievement of the following learning outcomes:

• Conduct a basic literature search using library and internet • Access data bases • Access research-based material and reports • Critically analyse research reports and research-based material • Recognise and reproduce the key elements of academic writing • Complete a full literature review.

ALLOCATION OF MARKS

These guidelines below are mainly for the benefit of the marker. To ensure you get good marks, make sure you read instructions above carefully and comply with them fully

Area Max. obtainable

Intro and Description 10

Validity 20

Reliability 20

Ethics 20

Conclusion 15

Search history 15

Every quote unacknowledged as such will incur a 5% penalty1

Every unsupported non-obvious factual claim will incur a 3% penalty

1 If you quote without even acknowledging the source you will be committing plagiarism – see penalties for it under the relevant section


ASSIGNMENT 2 – DATA COLLECTION, DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORT

Your task for this assignment: To produce a report on the study described here below. Your individual report will be due on 28 May at 4 PM

You will be doing a quantitative content analysis of text, which is a type of unobtrusive study. Remind yourself of what this is and look at examples of coding sheets on pages 121 and 197-200 in McIntyre (your textbook).

Aim of study: To produce a valid and reliable answer to a research question about Debate (e.g. Is it a racist/ sexist/ elitist/ publication?). Scales will be designed by the students at different levels of measurement and then applied to a representative sample of issues of Debate.

Students will work collaboratively on the design of the scales and on data collection, but will report on the data individually.

Numbers below assume a split of each class into six groups.

SEQUENCE OF TASKS

1) Design scales (in groups): Browse through a few issues of Debate and ask yourselves as a group what you like (or dislike) about those issues. Choose an apparent characteristic of Debate the real extent of which you would like to establish (e.g. Debate “consistently informs about issues relevant to students” or “it does not tell you enough about social events”, or “it is a really sexist magazine”). Your task is then to work on the definition of that characteristic of Debate so as to define it operationally - define it so that it can be measured - with three different scales, one at each of nominal, ordinal and interval/ratio levels of measurement. Aim to measure different aspects of your construct with each scale, so that together they provide higher content validity.

Your scales will need to be used by the other groups as well, so the scales need to be very clear. Each step on each scale will need to be defined so that other groups can use it the way you meant it to be used e.g. how can you define “cool” so that other groups will classify (or rate) a certain graphic the same way you do? Note: if a characteristic (like “coolness”) proves too hard to define operationally, choose a different one – you have only one hour to complete this step

Altogether the class will thus propose 18 different scales measuring six different dimensions at each of three levels of measurement, all of which will be used for data collection by groups, see below.

Groups will need to produce different scales – Tutors to ensure different groups formulate different research questions

2) Pilot scales (in groups): Maximize the validity and inter-rater reliability of your group’s scales by pre-testing them. Each scale is to be applied to the same issue of Debate independently by two different group members. This should be done to a minimum of four different issues. The data obtained should then be compared and any differences between raters discussed (e.g. “why are you calling that a 2? I think it is a 3”) until criteria are established that will allow the raters to agree on a rating. If you cannot agree your scale will be deemed unreliable, and by definition also invalid. Write these inter-subjective (agreed upon) criteria down for each scale. Note: No scale should take more than 3 min to apply.

The issues of Debate used for the pilot cannot be part of the sample in the actual study.


3) Gain buy-in from class and tutor approval for your group’s scales (whole class): Each group is to present their three scales to the whole class. You will need (a) to explain what you are measuring, why it is relevant, and why each scale is at that level of measurement with that number of steps, (b) to demonstrate how to use your scales (do this on a pilot issue). All 18 scales have to be used by all groups without modification, so groups need to make sure they understand the operational definition of each step on each scale, and will be able to use the scale as intended. Groups also have to propose a label for the construct their scales are measuring, which will then have the suffix NOM, ORD or RAT attached to show level of measurement

Scales will not be perfectly valid or reliable but this will give you material for Discussion. If a group totally fails to produce good enough scales, its members will be allowed to use other

groups’ scales, but their individual reports will incur a 20% penalty.

4) Define sample (whole class but only if previous step is finished before 11.30): Whole class needs to agree on a sample of at least 12 issues that would be representative of Debate. For this they should establish the parameters of the ‘population’ available to them and (preferably) do a stratified sampling (e.g. by year of publication, or by editor). If there is no time to do this (most likely), you will be given a sample.

5) Design the coding sheet (in groups) that will make it easy to record the values assigned to each issue on each of the 18 scales, while minimising coding errors. The sheet needs to record information about the rater of each scale and the issue of Debate being coded, as well as scores on all the scales. Each group needs to produce their own coding sheet for all 18 scales, according to questionnaire design guidelines, and keeping in mind ease of data entry and analysis as well (since order of variables on spreadsheet should be same as on coding sheet). Tutor will make 12 copies of coding sheet per group, IF files are e-mailed before 1 PM.

6) Data collection (in groups): All 12+ issues in the sample will need to be rated on all 18 scales by each group. Each student will be allocated three (or four) scales, one at each level, which they will apply to all (12) issues in the sample to ensure consistency in rating. Make sure that the coding sheet dedicated to a specific issue of Debate stays with the issue until all raters have used it. Tutor is to make sure there are no bottlenecks and that the issues in the sample get to circulate within and between groups.

7) Data entry (in groups): On your (Excel) spreadsheet you will need one column for each scale. Write the name of the scale on the top cell of each column (i.e. the first row). All groups MUST use the same name for a given scale (see above). The first column on the spreadsheet should be the Debate issue identifier, the second column is to identify the rater (by his/her initials) and then the scales should follow in the order you have them in your coding sheet (to minimise data entry errors). Each row will then be a case, and contain the values on each variable for one issue of Debate.

All the data from a single issue (i.e. from a single coding sheet) should be on ONE row. Each group should have one data point per issue per scale on their spreadsheet. Groups will need to email their spreadsheet with raw data to tutor before 3 PM.

8) Data analysis (whole class): Tutor will pick three scales, one at each level, and remind class of best applicable descriptive statistics.

9) Debrief (whole class): Do you think valid and reliable data on Debate will be produced by this exercise? Why? Why not?

10) Writing up of report (INDIVIDUALLY): See instructions on how to write a report below

WHILE DOING ALL OF THE ABOVE…

You should reflect and write down comments on each scale as you are developing and using them - this will be the basis for your Discussion. Does the level of


measurement affect ease of application? Does it affect inter-rater agreement? Are nominal scale scores easier to agree on than ordinal or interval ones? Do scales have enough definition? Are there too many steps? Or too few steps and things get lumped together that should not be? Are categories in nominal scales comprehensive and mutually exclusive?

Reflect also on the benefits and difficulties of collaborative research

HOW TO WRITE A RESEARCH REPORT (GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS) A research report will typically include the eight sections described below: Cover page, Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, References, and Appendices. Compare with the research report you evaluated for Assignment 1 to see if this is true.

Please note that each section has a clear, well defined function. The answer to what should go where will be clear to you if you understand what each section is meant to do.

Specific instructions for this assignment follow below, but do read these general instructions first. Why? Because otherwise you will not understand the specific ones, and because the sections of a report also make up a recipe for how to carry out a research project, even at level 7, so it has got to be good for you!

SECTIONS OF A RESEARCH REPORT

Cover page

Give your report an interesting title (in title case) enticing reader to read on, while capturing the aims of the study you are reporting on. Write your name and institutional affiliation (BA xxxx Programme, AUT University) below.

Abstract A single paragraph of no more than 150 words providing a complete summary of your report: What the aim of the research was, how it was done (on whom), what was found, and implications of findings (theoretical and/or practical). The Abstract should be the only thing on the first page of your report, under the heading Abstract (centred on the page).

Introduction The Introduction section is never labelled “Introduction”, its heading is actually the title of the report (again) but without your name underneath.

The introduction justifies your choices. The reader needs to know why the research was done (justify research question), the basics of how it was done (operational definitions) and what the expected findings (the hypotheses) were. A good basic sequence for an Introduction section is as follows

1. Specify the ‘real life’ issue your research relates to (e.g. criminalisation of prostitution, smacking your children, schizophrenia) and formulate a research question

2. Review (all) relevant research (like you did for Assignment 1) in the literature that might answer your research question. This sub-section should make up about half of your Introduction.

3. Summarise the theories and studies you have covered, and evaluate, pointing out how they fail to answer your research question, thus justifying your research

4. Describe the aim of your study, the research design and hypotheses. This should be the last paragraph before the Methods section. When formulating the hypotheses, use the operational definition of variables being studied e.g. “average number of swear words per letter to editor”, rather than “tone of letters to the editor”.


Method

This section follows immediately after the Introduction (do not put in a page break) and tells the reader all they need to know (no more, no less) in order to carry out your study themselves, should they wish to replicate your findings.

This section should only describe what was actually done - any lengthy arguments as to why it was done this particular way should have been done in the Introduction, and any discussion on how it should have been done better should definitely be left for the Discussion section.

It should be labelled Method (centred), and it should be divided into the following sub-sections (describing who, with what, and how):

Participants: Specify the number of participants, their sex, age, and any other characteristic that led to their being included in your sample (e.g. their ethnic affiliation, their university major, their urge to do the cha-cha every morning at 3 am) or that may have had an impact on your findings. Describe how the sampling was done, if any. If anybody dropped off or had to be excluded from the sample you mention and explain it here too

Materials: any scales used to measure, any stimuli participants were exposed to (such as pictures or movies or annoying confederates), any equipment you used – all the things that you as a researcher had to provide or create to make the study possible

Procedure: here you describe in chronological order all that happened to participants in the study, including how they were assigned to groups (if applicable), what their tasks were, if any, and the instructions they were given

Results This section follows immediately after the Introduction (do not put in a page break) and gives the reader a description (in words!!) of what you found. You should only report on actual findings in this section. Do not include interpretations or explanations for (lack of) findings – save those for the Discussion section (next).

Tables and graphs should be used where necessary to clarify and support the text, but should never replace it. Tables are numbered sequentially across the report, and independently of figures which should have their own numbering sequence.

Discussion This section should start with a summary of the findings, relating them back to theory. It should address the following questions: Were the findings what theory predicted? Did you find support for your hypothesis? Any practical implications of your findings? Any directions to be derived for future research? How would you do this better next time?

References

Please see pages 17 onwards, or the last page of this handbook if you are in a hurry, but do not neglect formatting APA-style because you will be penalised

Appendices

These should be numbered separately and independently of body of text, by hand if necessary. You will typically append documents which are useful to reader as evidence or support for claims you make in the text, but which if included would seriously disrupt the flow of the text.

Formatted: Bullets and NumberingCristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:10 AM


SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO WRITE THE RESEARCH REPORT FOR ASSIGN 2 General guideline: Assume that the reader of your report was not there and knows nothing about what you did. Pretend you are trying to get your grandmother to understand exactly what you did.

Cover page and Abstract as per instructions above.

For the Introduction, tell it as it is: This report is not theoretically motivated; it is the outcome of a teaching exercise for a compulsory paper in your degree. Do however say something about the object of study, i.e. Debate (what it is, who publishes it, how often, etc.) AND most importantly, argue the choice of your group’s dimension and scales to measure it, and where the other 15 scales came from that you are reporting on.

Method section as per above, just keeping in mind that your ‘participants’ are actually the issues of Debate – so you need to describe the sample (and sampling) of Debate issues. Call them Data Sources instead of Participants. The Materials sub-section should describe all the scales (organise them by dimension measured) and how they were all constructed (hopefully the instructions above will have been followed). If a scale proved impossible to use, altogether or on certain issues (e.g. it rated graphics and there were no graphics in those issues), it must still be described, and the reasons it could not be used explained.

Results section should reflect patterns in the data in its organisation (clearly positive data, clearly negative data, scales that support neither notion). If no patterns are obvious, then organise by dimension measured. Provide appropriate descriptive statistics for each scale, and use tables and graphs to summarise. Include one graph with central tendency measures for all the ordinal scales (medians) and one for all the interval/ratio scales (means).

Do report on ALL the data, do not exclude data just because you do not like it, or it does not look right. Otherwise follow instructions above for this section.

In the Discussion section you need to provide your own conclusion regarding the quality of Debate and whether it should continue to be published BASED ON THE RESULTS you just presented. If your Results do not point in any clear direction, then you need to offer some explanation as to why that is. It will be something about the sample, the scales, the procedure or both. Was it lack of reliability? Lack of validity? (see above under “While doing all of the above”). You need to answer the questions specified on the previous page for this section.

Reference list (if any) should be formatted strictly according to APA style.

MORE (!) DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU IN LECTURES AND TUTORIALS. Formatted: English (US)Cristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:15 AM


ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION – GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

On the due date, assignments will need to be submitted BOTH in hardcopy and in electronic form (see specific instructions below).

A time extension for submitting an assignment may be granted in cases of sickness, bereavement or serious personal crisis. Reasons that amount to inefficient time management are not grounds for an extension being granted. You must store copies of your written assignments (and of your data files) on your personal H: drive on the AUT server. Computer crashes or loss of memory sticks or any other external memory devices will not be considered grounds for extensions. No extensions will be granted for quizzes.

Applications for extensions should be handed in to Cristina BEFORE THE DUE DATE, on the yellow form to be found on top of the Assignment Boxes, and put under her door if she is not in her office (WT1404). Only applications accompanied by medical certificates will be considered after the due date.

Late assignments will be penalised with 5% of obtained marks per day of delay. If an extra day of work on your assignment will ensure you do not get the heavier penalties for lack of compliance with instructions or guidelines, then this is an option you should consider – but more than one extra day is not advisable.

You should expect your assignment to be marked within two weeks of handing it in. Please make sure to get your marked assignments back from your tutor to benefit from useful feedback provided on them.

HARDCOPY SUBMISSION – ASSIGNMENT BOX

Assignments need to be neatly typed and spell-checked. Marks will be deducted for obvious negligence in this respect. For body text, prefer Arial 11 pt font, 1.5 line spacing, a left margin of 2 cm, and a right margin of 3 cm (for tutor’s comments). Font size for headings should not exceed 16 pt. In the footer insert your name, course code and a ‘page number’ field.

Place your finished assignment in the Assignment Box labelled with the paper name to be found in the foyer on level 8 of the AUT Tower (WT)

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION TO TURNITIN

In order to protect the integrity of students’ individual work and the value of their qualification, AUT is now using ‘Turnitin’ - a software programme that detects copying and potential plagiarism. The purpose is to ensure that students get credit for work that is their own, and that no credit is given for work which is someone else’s. Students will need to register as users with Turnitin in order to be able to submit assignments (you will have done this already if you took Intro to Psych A in Sem 1). Full instructions on how to register as a user and how to submit assignments via the Turnitin web site can be found in the document named ‘Turnitin students’ to be found on AUTOnline. The procedure is similar in complexity to attaching documents to an e-mail. Please submit to Turnitin at the time of printing.

The Turnitin paper id for this paper 3108185 and the password is research

PLEASE NOTE: You will need to submit your assignments to Turnitin within TWO

days of your hard copy being submitted OR YOUR ASSIGNMENT WILL NOT BE MARKED.


REFERENCING AND GOOD ACADEMIC WRITING

P L A G I A R I S M W I L L N O T B E T O L E R A T E D Unless you can show that an idea or observation has originated with you, any non-obvious substantial claim you make in an assignment needs to be derived from established theory or supported by research.

Such claims if unsupported – made without explicit reference to somebody else’s research or theory – are claims to originality. If the unsupported claims you make have not originated with you but with someone else, you will be committing plagiarism. Significant plagiarism will be reported to the Disciplinary Committee.

DO NOT CUT AND PASTE from other people’s writing without identifying those sections as QUOTES.

You must use APA referencing style in all your assignments. Comprehensive guidance from the AUT Library on APA style can be found on http://aut.ac.nz.libguides.com/APA6th , and a quick guide is available on pages 18-19 of this handbook. Marks will be deducted for obvious disregard for APA style formatting guidelines. Use of EndNote for construction of Reference lists is encouraged – software is available on AUT computers.

One very important principle guiding good academic writing is to

AVOID UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS Claims in scholarly writing that need support can basically be one of two types:

You state a fact (Ex. Teenage pregnancies increase as fear of AIDS decreases) - factual claims are validated by how well they describe reality, so they need to be supported empirically (by observations)

You offer a definition (operational or otherwise) for a concept or construct (ex. in this report, I will use the term premature birth rather than spontaneous abortion for babies born after the 23rd week of gestation) - definitions are validated by how well they link to and fit existing theory. Established theory should be used whenever possible to support your definitions - but as long as you tell the reader exactly how you are going to use terms you know could be given different meanings, you are giving the reader what he/she needs, in order to know whether he/she agrees or disagrees with you

Factual claims should always be supported, either by empirical evidence you have gathered yourself or by published reports on empirical evidence gathered by somebody else, preferably published in a scientific/ scholarly journal. These reports should be the original reports written by whoever actually carried out the research2 (you should always aim to use primary rather than secondary sources) – otherwise you will be one step further removed from the empirical evidence and there will be one more chance for the account to become distorted

You are responsible for the quality of your writing – you must critically assess the sources you use to support your claims. Never take facts as read. This means you must read the reports first hand, and not rely on somebody else’s account (known as ‘second-hand referencing’). Do whatever you can to lay your hands on a copy of the original report – if the 2 A simple way to recognise such first-hand research reports is to look for any ‘Methods’ and ‘Results’ sections

Cristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:14 AMDeleted: You must use APA referencing style in your assignments. Use of EndNote for construction of Reference lists is encouraged. Guidance from AUT Library on both APA style and EndNote can be found in http://www.aut.ac.nz/library/training_and_help/endnote.shtml. Marks will be deducted for obvious disregard for APA style formatting guidelines.


report is good, published in a good journal, and therefore likely to be part of one of the databases AUT subscribes to, it should be available for you to download. Read the full report and then ask yourself: Why should I believe any of this? Relevant things to look out for in any report (these things will be easier to assess the more you read about the topic in scholarly journals):

The journal it was published in – at the very least it should be peer-reviewed and reasonably established. The volume number for the report will tell you roughly how many years the journal has been published. Until you have become an expert in the area, it is safer to stick to well-established journals (volume numbers >10), because they are able to recruit real experts for their editorial boards – these are the people who decide which articles are good-enough to publish

The first author of the report, the one who actually wrote it – how much have they published in the area? When did they start publishing? Are they the ones who started this line of research, or did they jump on the bandwagon? Do a quick search by name of author. In Ovid databases you can click on the author’s name as it appears in the Abstract to get a list of their publications. As a guideline to judge the number of publications: academics can publish any number of chapters in books (which do not require data collection) and reviews, etc. per year, but they can only really be expected to publish one or two research reports per year. Research projects may take years to complete, and you can only really have more than one-two research projects active at any one time if you have lots of good Masters and PhD students. Again, look at the quality of the journals author has published in. Chapters in edited books can be evidence of peer-esteem and recognition, the author will have been asked by the book’s editor to write it (or by a publisher, if they are the editors of the book). In order to really assess this you will need to know something about the publisher for the book. Some publishers are more concerned with academic standards – and less prone to publish anything controversial that will sell - than others. Information can also be gained by looking at the co-authors. Maybe the first author got to write up the research, but really s/he is the PhD student of the second or third author – so they will not have published much. The real mastermind behind the research among the listed co-authors may be known to you as an authority in the area, or may be revealed by looking at who is on the ‘address for correspondence about this article’ - typically specified either on the first or last page of the article – this is the person who can really answer the questions from critical colleagues, and they may have published heaps.

The number and quality of the references. Once you know enough about a topic and have identified who the authorities and/or the gold standards are, you do not bother reading a report until you have checked the reference list. If they do not make reference to the publications you know to be important, likelihood is the authors are reinventing the wheel, which could be worthwhile doing, but only if you are going to do a better job of it.

The quality of the actual research methods used, and the suitability of the approach chosen. Be suspicious of articles that do not describe their methods in enough detail - unless they acknowledge this, and refer you to some earlier publication where they have published a detailed description.

Whether the results /findings actually are solid or definitive enough to allow the author(s) to draw whatever conclusions they have drawn. Critically assess their figures and tables – are authors giving an accurate picture, or are they trying to exaggerate the significance of their findings? See Appendix C in McIntyre (2005).

How often the study has been cited by other researchers. See http://www.isinet.com/tutorials/citedreference/ for a tutorial on the Web of Science, a citation index that covers the sciences (including social), the arts, and the humanities.


Level of self-scrutiny shown in the discussion. The discussion section of a research report should summarise and relate the results back to the hypothesis/ theory: Do the findings support or question the theory? Particularly if the findings do not support the theory (and the theory is well established) the author(s) should then go on to assess their own methodology and look for possible flaws in the design, or in the data collection instruments, or in data analysis methods used, which could explain why their findings are different from what the theory would predict. The discussion should point to all the shortcomings of the study reported on, and point to areas where more research is needed

AND NEVER REFER TO A PUBLICATION IN THE TEXT OTHER THAN BY NAME OF AUTHOR AND YEAR

APA STYLE GUIDELINES

You must use APA referencing style for all your assignments while at AUT. Use of EndNote for construction of Reference lists is (very much) encouraged.

Guidance from AUT Library on APA style can be found in http://aut.ac.nz.libguides.com/APA6th . Marks will be deducted for obvious disregard for APA style formatting guidelines.

What follows is based on advice originally compiled by Rosemary Brewer, Senior Lecturer, School of Communication Studies

When you are writing as a student or a professional (e.g. in essays or reports) unless you are reporting an original idea all of your own, you need to refer to relevant published research in the area. This has two very important purposes:

1. To back up your claims, by linking them to an existing body of knowledge

2. To give credit to whom it is due. Failure to do this – pretending you came up with an idea that is not really yours - is called plagiarism. Plagiarism is regarded as a very serious offence. Learning to reference correctly is your best protection against charges of plagiarism.

In any scientific publication, referencing is done in two places:

Within the body of the text: The author and year of the publication on which you are basing your claim are written into the text itself (NEVER refer to a publication by its title in the body of the text)

In the Reference list: A list of all the publications actually referred to in the text is placed at the end. It is titled 'References' and includes author, title, and publication details for all your references. Do not call this a Bibliography. A bibliography is a list of background readings on a subject, which may or may not have been actually referred to in the text

1. REFERENCING WITHIN THE BODY OF THE TEXT

There are two basic ways you can refer to other people’s research findings or ideas in your writing: paraphrasing and quoting.

Paraphrasing involves expressing a concept in your own words. This should ALWAYS be attempted first. If you cannot paraphrase, then you have not understood what you have read. Make reference to the source after each new claim supported by that source.

Formatted: Heading 2Cristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:16 AM

Formatted: LeftCristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:17 AM

Formatted: English (US)Cristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:15 AM

Formatted: Bullets and NumberingCristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:13 AM

Formatted: UnderlineCristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:21 AM


Quoting - copying the exact words from the source publication. This should only be used as a LAST RESORT if you find that paraphrasing just does not do justice to the author’s intended meaning. This should not happen more than a couple of times in any written assignment.

Please Note: If Turnitin shows that more than 50% of your submission consists of quotes, you will be required to resubmit, even if you have acknowledged the sources you have copied from, since not enough of the submission is your own work. The maximum grade you can get for a resubmission is a C-.

The author and date of publication quoted need to be inserted immediately after the quote (see below for formatting details), and you must include the number of the page you have copied from. The quotation itself will be identified as such in either of two ways, depending on its length:

(a) Short quotations are signalled by quotation marks at beginning and end of quote

(b) Long quotations (40 or more words) should be started on a new line, and all lines should be indented, creating a distinctly separate block of text. No quotation marks are necessary.

When referring to a publication in the text you need to do so by author(s)’ surname(s) and year of publication. NEVER refer to a publication by its title in the text. When using the authors' names as part of a sentence only the year of publication goes in brackets, otherwise both names and year of publication are put in brackets:

Examples:

Devito, O'Rourke and O'Neill (2000) divide the process of perception into three stages

The process of perception can be divided into three stages (Devito, O'Rourke & O'Neill, 2000) …

When several sources can be used to support a claim, put them all in brackets. Use a semicolon to separate publications, and list them in alphabetical order by first author:

Example:

The process of perception consists of three stages (Adler & Towne, 1990; Devito, O'Rourke & O'Neill, 2000; Littlejohn, 1996; Tubbs & Moss, 2000).

When a text has two authors, both names are used every time the text is cited. When a source has up to six authors, all the authors' names must be included the first time the source is cited. After that, the first author's name and 'et al.' (which means ‘and others’) are used. (Note the full stop after 'et al.'). Also, if you cite the same source more than once within a single paragraph, only the first citation needs to include the date. See the APA manual for specific formatting guidelines for publications with more than six authors.

Examples:

Tubbs and Moss (2000) say about perception that it is a process in three stages ... There are three stages to the perception process (Tubbs & Moss, 2000).

Devito, O'Rourke and O'Neill (2000) describe …. Devito et al. also describe ...

You should really only cite sources you have read first hand, but sometimes this is impossible. When the source publication quotes a further source that you want to include, you cite the original publication and then add ‘as cited in’ followed by a citation of the publication you did read:



Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: Cristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:55 AM

Formatted: Font:11 ptCristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:47 AM

Formatted: Font:Not ItalicCristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:49 AM

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"Cristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:49 AM


Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.5"Cristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:48 AM

Formatted: Font color: AutoCristina Parra� 14/7/09 7:02 AM

Formatted: Font:Not Bold, Font color:Cristina Parra� 14/7/09 7:02 AM

Formatted: Font color: AutoCristina Parra� 14/7/09 7:02 AM


Example:

The symbolic nature of language has been considered by many authors. Humans are prone to "symbol making, symbol using, and symbol misusing" according to one of them (Burke, 1986, p. 223 as cited in Larson, 2001, p.85).

When referring to a text with a corporate author, use the name of the organisation:

Example:

Harassment prevention policies are designed to minimise harm to all parties (Auckland University of Technology, 2001).

2. PUTTING TOGETHER THE REFERENCE LIST

The list of the references you have used makes up the last section of your assignment or report. Readers - assignment markers in particular - often look at the reference list before they even begin to read the text. The reference list shows them the range and depth of your reading as well as giving them enough information to find your references if they want to check them. That is the main guiding principle for the Reference list: all the information the reader will need to locate your source must be included, and each reference must be correctly formatted so that the reader knows WHAT it is they are looking for (an article in a journal? a book?)

The section should be titled ‘References’. You should list you references alphabetically by first author’s last name. NEVER change the order of authors in a publication, since they will be ordered strictly according to how much they contributed to that publication. The first author is (should be) the person that actually wrote the article.

Each reference is contained within a single paragraph. To make it easier for the reader you should have the first line of each reference ‘stick out’:

Bitchener, J. (2000). The negotiation of meaning by advanced ESOL learners: The effects of individual learner factors and task type. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland.

To do this on Microsoft Word, go Format > Paragraph > Indents and Spacing > Special, and choose the ‘Hanging’ option.

The best way to ensure that all the references in the text are included in the reference list - and vice versa, that you have not ‘padded’ your reference list with publications you have not actually used - is to use EndNote. Padding a Reference list is considered dishonest and a breach of academic discipline.

IF YOU ARE IN A HURRY: Below is the basic format for the three types of publication you will most likely use for your assignments (with made-up examples).

1. Article in a scientific journal Author’s last name, Initial(s). (Year of publication). Title of article in sentence case.

Name of Journal in Title Case and in Italics, volume number in italics, first page – last page.

Example:

Factor, M. A. & Crowe, R. P. (2001). Why eyes have eyelids. Journal of Eye Anatomy, 15, 69-86.

Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.5"Cristina Parra� 14/7/09 6:52 AM

Formatted: Font:ItalicCristina Parra� 14/7/09 7:20 AM



Formatted: JustifiedCristina Parra� 14/7/09 7:15 AM


References to authored articles in magazines or newspapers are formatted the same way, BUT they need to have the date of publication inserted into brackets after year i.e. (2001, March 24)

If you have only read the article in its electronic form (i.e. you have downloaded it), you must specify the DOI number for the article. If the DOI is not available, give the journal home page URL for the article.

Please look under the Journal, Magazine, Newspaper Articles tab under http://aut.ac.nz.libguides.com/APA6th for instructions on where to find DOI or journal home page URL

Always download the .pdf version of an article if available.

Example:

Factor, M. A. & Crowe, R. P. (2001). Why eyes have eyelids. Journal of Eye Anatomy, 15, 69-86. doi:10.1177/1077556805285735

2. Book

Author’s last name, Initial(s). (year of publication). Title of book in sentence case. US state initials or Country: Publisher

Example:

Factor, M. A. (2002). How the eye developed a lid. New York, NY: Lousy Publishers.

3. Chapter in edited book (note how editors’ initials go before their last name)

Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year of publication). Title of chapter. In A. Editor & B. Editor (Eds.), Title of book (pages of chapter). US state initials or Country: Publisher.

Example:

Factor, M. T. & Crowe, D. P. (2001). Why eyes have eyelids. In T. Ermite & F. Lute (Eds.), The truth about the anatomy of the mammal eye (pp. 78-98). Auckland, New Zealand: Lousy Publishers.

PLEASE REFER TO THE APA MANUAL FOR CORRECT FORMATTING OF ANY OTHER TYPE OF SOURCE

Formatted: LeftCristina Parra� 14/7/09 8:07 AM


Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: Cristina Parra� 14/7/09 7:32 AM

Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0", Firstline: 0"

Cristina Parra� 14/7/09 7:59 AM

Formatted: Font:Not BoldCristina Parra� 14/7/09 7:17 AM

Formatted: NormalCristina Parra� 14/7/09 7:18 AM

Formatted: Font:Not BoldCristina Parra� 14/7/09 7:17 AM

Formatted: Font:Not Bold, UnderlineCristina Parra� 14/7/09 7:18 AM

285104 Research & Analysis 2010 handbook v3

Documents

Transcript of 285104 Research & Analysis 2010 handbook v3