HMPYC80 Research Methodology (2022 - Semester 1 - Assignment 2)

HMPYC80 – Research Methodology 2022 – Semester 1 – Assignment 2 Question #1: The title contains at least one central psychological construct from the research proposal or study. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #2 The title indicates the research setting or demographic information of the sample population. Any one of the following is sufficient: where, who, when, under what circumstances, or the phenomenon that is being investigated. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #3: The title points to, or refers to, the research method, design, or paradigm. This may be signalled by a keyword or phrase such as: “lived experiences”, “perceptions”, “attitudes”, “constructions”, “discourses”, “quasi-experimental”, “critical study”, “psychometric properties”, “correlational study”, “inferential study”, and so on. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria.   Question #4: The abstract indicates the research interest, issue or problem. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #5: The abstract indicates the setting, demographic or circumstances pertaining to the research interest or question. Any one of the following is sufficient: where, who, when, under what circumstances, or the phenomenon that is being investigated. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #6: The abstract contains the specific research question or research statement. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #7: The abstract indicates the key theoretical perspective(s) that is (are) used in the literature. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #8: The abstract specifies the (proposed) research method, study type or research design. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #9: The abstract indicates the (proposed) data collection method. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #10: The abstract describes the (proposed) population sample, and sampling strategy or approach. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #11: The abstract indicates the (proposed) data analysis method or technique. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #12: For completed research projects only: the abstract succinctly lists the actual findings of the study, and states how the study answers, addresses, or illuminates the research issue or question. (Proposals will receive a “1” for this item as the actual research has not yet been performed.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #13: The list of keywords contains at least (a) one key psychological construct and (b) one key reference to a psychological theory. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #14: The list of keywords indicates the research setting and demographic information of the sample. Any two of the following is sufficient: where, when, who, under what circumstances, or the phenomenon that is being investigated. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #15: The list of keywords indicates the research method, study type or research design. (This may be indicated directly or indirectly by phrases such as: “lived experiences”, “perceptions”, “attitudes”, “constructions”, “discourses”, “quasi-experimental”, “critical study”, “psychometric properties”, “correlational study”, “inferential study”, and so on.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #16: The context (who, what, where, how, how come, when) of the research issue is clearly described. (Note that this rating issue can be addressed anywhere in the proposal or article, including the conclusion.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #17: The relevant role-players, affected parties or interest groups with regard to the research issue or problem are mentioned. Role-players, affected parties and interest groups can include: the researcher, individuals, clients, students, beneficiaries, patients, families, households, communities, practitioners, professionals, businesses, organisations, institutions, funders, legislators, the environment (ecologies such as a river, watershed, plant/tree/insect/animal species, or a natural landmark); and cultural, ceremonial, or historic practices and sites. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #18: The research issue or problem is firmly located within the discipline of psychology as indicated by appropriate psychological terms and constructs. (For example: perception, attitude, cognition, emotion, experience, behaviour, discourse, identity, community, ideology, etcetera.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #19: The interest in the problem, issue or phenomenon is clarified. Why, how, or how come is the research topic of interest to the relevant role-players, affected parties or interest groups? (See role-players mentioned in Question 17) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #20: For research proposals at least 12 references from relevant scientific and disciplinary literature are provided in the literature review. For research articles at least 24 references are used in the introduction, literature review, results, and discussion sections. (This is a minimum standard. Note that the next 2 items explore the comprehensiveness and currency of the literature review.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #21: A minimum of three relevant theoretical perspectives are discussed, compared, evaluated, and integrated -- to understand, describe or explain the psychological dynamics of the research issue, phenomenon and context literature are provided in the literature review. (Theoretical triangulation). Note that older publications of seminal theorists (for example Freud, Skinner, Jung, etcetera) are (or may still be) relevant. Recent and current updates of theories, debates and contestations, and findings must also be presented. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #22: At least two relevant empirical research results are incorporated and discussed in the literature review -- to further understand, describe or explain the psychological dynamics, occurrence, incidence, or prevalence (i.e., census data, surveys, epidemiological studies, experiments, programme evaluations, population or client data) of the research issue or phenomenon. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #23: The literature review discussion continues the scientific, academic, and disciplinary dialogue with published bodies of knowledge and expertise. - (For proposals a preliminary but comprehensive overview of literature is provided, with indications of key studies, theories and theorists that inform the proposal.) - (For Master’s or Doctoral dissertation/thesis a brief history of the theories, ideas, contestations, findings and debates in the field should also be provided.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #24: The literature review is relevant to the topic, without unnecessary digressions or detours. The literature review speaks directly to the research issue that is investigated or explored in this study. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #25: The author(s) wrote the literature review section with academic integrity. It appears or has been confirmed to be their own unique work, written in their own words and style. The literature review is plagiarism-free. All authors and literature sources are acknowledged in some way (even if the citation style is incorrect or imperfectly used.) [The use of plagiarism checking software is advisable to establish this criterion, except in the case of peer-reviewed published articles.] 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #26: All author(s) and sources in the literature review are cited correctly and follow the prescribed in-text citation style. (APA7 style for HMPYC80, or in the case of published journal articles -- the prescribed referencing style of the specific journal was adhered to.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #27: Research method: The research ontology, (or) paradigm or approach is clearly (a) specified and defined, and (b) substantiated. In the discussion it is made evident and clear (a) which specific approach, paradigm or ontology was selected and what this entails, and (b) why this was done. Some examples: The Positivistic, Post-positivistic, Interpretive, Qualitative, Constructivist, Social Constructionist, Phenomenological, Realist, Pragmatic, Ecological Systems, Critical, Transformative, Feminist, Womanist, Critical Race, Indigenous, Africanist, Decolonial, Hermeneutic, Participatory, Action research ontology, paradigm, or approach. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #28: Research method: The research question or research statement is clearly formulated and demarcated. The following two constructs are indicated in the research question or statement: (a) demographic or contextual information of the population or setting of the inquiry; and (b) a relevant psychological keyword or construct. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #29: Research method: An appropriate (proposed) method and (proposed) research design (will be) were chosen to research the question or issue. The research method and design are indicated. A rationale for the selected method is provided. (Research design refers to a specific plan and structure of the investigation that is used to obtain evidence in order to answer or illuminate the research question). 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #30: Research method: The data or evidence that was (will be) collected to investigate the research themes or variables appears to be appropriate and legitimate. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #31: Research method: The (proposed) sampling strategy, sample population and sample size are discussed in detail, and appear to be appropriate. (The strengths and limitations of the sampling strategy must be indicated for academic research projects and proposals but is not required for peer reviewed articles.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #32: Research method: The (proposed) data collection, coding and analysis method(s) are reliable; or dependable and credible. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #33: Research method: The (proposed) data collection, coding and analysis method(s) are trustworthy and valid. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #34: Research method: The (proposed) procedures whereby the data are (to be) professionally and ethically managed are explained in sufficient detail. Any one of the following is sufficient: the information is appropriately recorded, stored, and secured with a password or under lock and key. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #35: The ethical prescription of non-malevolence and avoidance of harm are complied with. (The rights and needs of vulnerable and minority groups are adhered to by prescribed ethical and legal frameworks.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #36: The ethical directive of informed consent is adhered to. (Vulnerable and minority groups are treated within the prescribed parameters of relevant ethical and legal frameworks.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #37: The ethical mandate of voluntary participation is adhered to, and participants have the right to withdraw from the research study. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #38: The ethical imperatives of privacy, confidentiality and anonymity are not violated. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #39: The ethical imperative of ethical oversight is fulfilled. The research proposal or project adheres to institutional research policies, guidelines, and procedures. The research proposal was (or will be) submitted to all appropriate institutional ethics review panels for ethical oversight, and official written permission was (will be) obtained to perform the research. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #40: Presentation: The grammar and spelling in the research document are at least 95% correct. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #41: The entire document from beginning to end is plagiarism-free. All the important works, ideas, theories, authors, facts, and statements are acknowledged in some way (even if the citation style is incorrect or imperfectly used.) The authors(s) wrote the text with academic integrity; and it appears or is confirmed to be their own and unique work. [The use of plagiarism checking software is advisable to establish this criterion.] Also see Item 25. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #42: The various authors and sources in the proposal or article (the entire document) are cited correctly and follow the prescribed in-text citation style. This should be correct for the entire document. (APA7 style for HMPYC80 proposals, or the prescribed referencing style of the specific journal.) Was the correct citation method used? Also see Item 26. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #43: A complete list of all references that were cited is provided at the end of the document. Is it complete? 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #44: The reference list at the end of the document adheres to the required standard and format. (APA7 style for HMPYC80 for proposals, or in the case of published journal articles -- the prescribed referencing style of the specific journal was adhered to.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #45: The work is of overall acceptable academic standard, and it is written using an appropriate academic/scientific style suitable to the research paradigm, approach, and journal (in the case of published articles). 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #46: The actual data collection, coding and analysis method(s) were performed reliably; or dependably and credibly. (Apply the criteria as discussed in item 32.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #47: The way in which the data were analysed and interpreted is explained in sufficient detail and provides sufficient information for a reader to be able to follow the procedures. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #48: The data collection, coding and analysis method(s) were applied in a correct and substantiated manner and appear trustworthy and valid. (Apply the criteria as discussed in item 33.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #49: The data analysis and interpretation were performed ethically. (Refer to "research ethics": items 35 to 39.) 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #50: The results are presented appropriately and correctly. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #51: The results are clearly structured, well presented, and easy to follow. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #52: A discussion is presented which interprets or explains the results and their implications for the research question or issue. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #53: The discussion links and explains the results to the existing bodies of literature of as discussed in the literature review. It links to existing theoretical perspectives, and where relevant to existing empirical findings. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #54: The research paradigm, theoretical perspectives in the literature, research methods, data gathering techniques, data coding and analysis, and interpretations that were employed are in line with the research question and aim of the study. There is a “golden thread” that runs through the document and connects each subsection and section to the whole. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #55: The possibility of alternative explanations or interpretations of the results is considered. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #56: The possibility or need for further research is raised. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #57: The strengths, weaknesses and limitations of the study are presented. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria. Question #58: A final conclusion is presented that succinctly reiterates the main research findings or results. 1. Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong. 2. Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement or criteria. 3. Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria.