Research Paper Mini Guide - University of Ottawa · 2015-10-30 · Research Paper Mini Guide The I Master’s Research Paper Mini Guide is designed to help keep you on track so that

Research Paper Mini Guide

The IE Master’s Research Paper Mini Guide is designed to help keep you on track so that you can

complete the program in one year. The guide provides basic information on the preparation of a

master's research paper. If you require additional information on any of the steps listed below,

please contact [email protected].

This guide is intended as a resource only. Those involved in research paper preparation at the

University of Ottawa are responsible for ensuring they have met all academic unit, FGPS, and

University regulations and requirements.

IMPORTANT RESOURCES:

Important Academic Dates and Deadlines

All emails to the Academic Unit should be sent to [email protected] SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT DEADLINES:

Registration of Topic and Supervisor (due September 30, send to [email protected]).

Second Reader Form (due March 1st, send to [email protected]).

Research Paper Proposal (due April 1st, send to [email protected]).

Suggested: 1st Draft submitted to Supervisor (June 1st, send to supervisor directly).

Research Paper (due July 15th, send to [email protected]. The RP will be forwarded to your supervisor and second reader for comments).

Submission of Final RP (due August 15th, send to [email protected] to get graded).

Supervisor Submits Grade (due August 29th, supervisor sends grade to [email protected]).

Submit uOResearch Licence (due August 29th, send to [email protected]).

Grades are posted (see important dates and deadlines – normally end of September).

Student Registers for their Degree (see important academic dates and deadlines – usually September 1st for Fall Convocation. Send form to the Thesis Sector of the FGPS (Thesis Sector, Hagan Hall, 115 Séraphin-Marion, Room 107. [email protected] / fax to 613-562-5992).

7.1 Select a Topic and Supervisor – Fall (September – December)

Students in the research paper option must complete the form Registration of Research Paper Topic and Supervisor by September 30th. This form must indicate the chosen topic and your supervisor of choice (who must have given their consent to serve as a supervisor).

Should the student change either his/her supervisor or the topic of the Research Paper, s/he must inform the academic unit immediately by email by resending the form indicating the new supervisor and/or new topic to [email protected].

7.11 Find a second reader – Winter (January – April)

With your supervisor, identify a second reader that can review your Research Paper Proposal and your

Research Paper. Complete the Second Reader Form by March 1st and send it [email protected].

The second reader must have given their consent to serve as your second reader.

7.12 Register for the Research Paper (EVD 6999) – Winter (January – April)

Students must register for EVD 6999 taking place in the Spring-Summer Session. Please see the list of

Academic Dates and Deadlines to determine when registration opens – usually end of March.

Registration in EVD 6999 must be maintained in every consecutive session until completion of all program requirements. Once registered in EVD 6999, students must consult regularly with their supervisor.

7.13 Submit your Research Paper Proposal – Winter (January – April)

Under the guidance of their supervisor, students must prepare a research proposal during the winter

session. The proposal should, at a minimum, outline the research question and its importance, specify

the proposed sources, and state the methodology or analytical approach the student intends to use.

The proposal elements are outlined in detail below.

The student must work on their proposal under the guidance of their supervisor. The student must send the proposal to [email protected] by April 1st. The academic coordinator will forward the proposal to the student’s second reader. The second reader has two weeks to review the proposal and send back comments which will be shared with both the student and supervisor.

The Research Paper Proposal should include the following:

Introduction

In the introduction the student should address four main points:

Introduce the problem(s) you plan to address. In a punchy and compelling manner, clarify why there is a gap or problem, a lack of understanding, fuzzy thinking about an issue, etc. What are the main theoretical debates and explanations related to your issue? Is there reason to question some of the assumptions underlying current approaches? Is there a lack of evidence regarding your issue? To do this, you must demonstrate that you have a good grasp of the current state of understanding, i.e. what research has been done, how, what is known and what is not known yet.

Introduce your proposed research questions. Avoid questions to which the answers have already been established in the relevant literatures.

Briefly preview how your research will enable you to explore this problem, i.e. how you will conduct research to answer your questions. If you are using a deductive approach and plan to formally test hypotheses, note your preliminary hypotheses here. Even if you are not planning to formally test hypotheses, note your hunches. You should also include two or three sentences previewing your preliminary analytical or theoretical framework in this section.

Briefly explain the practical and/or theoretical significance of your proposed research. As a general rule, aim to explore a subject in a way that will shed new light on environmental sustainability issues that you have discerned in the literature. This can be done by applying an established theoretical perspective to a new case or body of data, by exploring a new theoretical perspective in relation to relevant data, by using established research methods to explore a new case or broader data, etc. Take advantage of the fact that our interdisciplinary program encourages you to (selectively) use a variety of disciplinary and theoretical lenses to understand issues.

Literature review

The literature review builds on section 1 by systematically situating the proposed research in the context of the relevant scholarly and policy literatures. As a result, you must provide the background for understanding why your proposed topic constitutes a “problem”. You need to show that you understand what has already been demonstrated and that you are not reinventing the wheel. Use appropriate subheadings to identify major topics you are covering. At the end of the literature review, the reader should have a clear understanding of what is known, what requires better understanding, and why your proposed research is important.

At the end of this section, you should elaborate on the analytical (and if possible theoretical) framework that you are thinking of using. This should flow from your analysis of the literature and into your explanation of research methods. Ensure that you cover a critical mass of relevant, peer-reviewed sources in your review.

Design and methodology

In this section you should describe the overall design and specific methods you will employ in your research and to analyse relevant data. Your research design and methodologies must clearly link to your stated problematic and research objectives, the hypotheses you want to test formally or the hunches you want to explore more informally/inductively. If you are using quantitative methods, clarify your hypotheses, your key variables and how you will measure the relationships between them. It is important to detail what you will look at and the different sets of data you will gather (e.g. archival

records, documents, interviews, survey data, etc), if appropriate. If you will be relying upon primary and secondary documents, state the types of documents you will consult, how you will find and select them, etc. Next, you must justify your choice of methods. You should show that you are being realistic about what you can accomplish.

Ethics statement (½ -one page)

The main ethical questions that a student should address: Are there ethical concerns that you need to address? Will you be using human subjects? If your research could put them (or you) at risk, how will you manage those risks? Will you require ethical clearance from the University? If so, when/how will you obtain it? How might your research actually benefit some stakeholders?

If you will be completing a Research Paper that raises ethical issues, this section should be a stepping stone towards your ethics application, if relevant, which you will be required to complete and submit to the UO Research Ethics Board (REB). The ethics application, and whether it is required, will be discussed in the Methods course, EVD 5108. Your supervisor can help you determine whether an ethics application will be necessary.

Calendar (about 1/2 page)

The calendar is used to generate a timetable indicating the stages of your research and the amount of time you plan to allocate to each

Bibliography (2-3 pages, single-spaced)

This section should include complete bibliographic references for ALL sources cited in your proposal. Citation and referencing vary by discipline. Consult your supervisor as to preferred citation and referencing style (s)he requires. Whichever format you use, be consistent.

Stylistic & editorial guidelines

Write your proposal in clear language and in a concise manner. Avoid jargon. Demonstrate to your readers that you have thought carefully about your research but that you respect their expertise too. PROOFREAD and revise your text as many times as needed. If you are writing in your second or third language, have the text reviewed by a competent peer before submitting the final version.

7.14 Work on the RP – Spring-Summer (May-August)

Work with your supervisor to determine submission deadlines in order to complete the RP on time. We

recommend that students submit a first draft directly to the supervisor on June 1st.

* Note that professors may take vacation during the summer session. It is your responsibility to communicate / plan submission dates with your supervisor to ensure that they have time to review your work, and to ensure that you stay on track.

7.15 Length, Style and Content of the Major Research Paper

A master’s research paper is similar to a master’s thesis, but is only about half as long. The student must show the ability to work independently in a scholarly manner, just as with a thesis. The research paper is examined by the supervisor and one other professor and there is no oral examination. There is a general consensus in the academic community that the master’s degree with research paper is adequate preparation for a PhD. In fact, there is an increasing trend toward masters’ students in the humanities and social sciences choosing the research paper rather than the thesis option in programs where both options exist.

The research paper will usually be 50 pages in length, double-spaced, including footnotes, but excluding bibliography and appendices. Research papers should include a title page, a table of contents, a one-page abstract, and a complete bibliography. The citation style and format of papers may vary according to the area of study, and determined by the supervisor. It is expected that most papers, including theoretical papers, will take an interdisciplinary approach and consist of policy relevant research or policy analysis.

7.16 Submitting the Research Paper for Evaluation – Spring-Summer (May-August)

Students must submit the Research Paper to the academic unit ([email protected]) by July 15th. Do not send the RP directly to your supervisor or second reader. The academic unit will send the RP to the supervisor and second reader for comments. The supervisor and reader have 2 weeks to provide comments which they send to [email protected]. These are then shared with the student and the supervisor. The student will then incorporate these comments into a final version that will be graded. A student may not submit their research paper until all program requirements have been completed before or during the session of the final submission. A student must be registered in the session in which they submit their research paper. Be aware that evaluation times may take longer if the submission coincides with professors’ scheduled fieldwork or holiday times. Please check with the supervisor and reader to ensure that they are available to review your Research Paper at this time (July 15th- July 29th). If they are unavailable, then submission dates must be scheduled earlier to ensure that you graduate on time.

7.17 Grading Process (2 weeks) – Spring-Summer (May-August)

The student incorporates comments and submits their Final Research Paper to the Academic Unit ([email protected]) by August 15th. The Academic Unit sends the Final RP to the supervisor and the supervisor assigns a grade based on the Research Paper Evaluation Guidelines. Please note that it is recommended that the supervisor consult with the second reader when determining the grade. This is up to the discretion of the supervisor. The grade is sent to [email protected] by August 29th. The grade is posted and is made available to the student (usually at the end of September). Please check the Important Academic Dates and Deadlines for the exact date.

7.18 uO Research Submission – Spring-Summer (May-August)

The Academic Coordinator will have you sign a non-exclusive license to the University of Ottawa and may post your Research Paper on the uO Research Website.

7.19 Registration for Degree - Spring-Summer (May-August) While waiting to hear from the evaluation results submit the Registration for Degree Form to the thesis sector of the FGPS. The Fall Convocation deadline changes each year and is listed online.

Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral [email protected] | 613-562-5742115 Seraphin Marion Ottawa ON K1N 6N5

Université d’Ottawa | University of Ottawa

REGISTRATION OF THESIS TOPIC / APPOINTMENT OF THESIS SUPERVISOR

ESUP-FÉSP (E) PDF 2015/05

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE

SIGNATURES

TITLE OF THESIS:

PH.D.DIPLOMA MASTER’S

EMAIL

STUDENT IDENTIFICATION

ACADEMIC UNIT / DISCIPLINE FIRST REGISTRATION

ANNÉE MOIS

GIVEN NAMESURNAME STUDENT NUMBER

EMAIL

NAME (PRINT)

SIGNATURE (STUDENT)DATE

DATE

DATE

SIGNATURE (THESIS SUPERVISOR)

DATE

SIGNATURE (THESIS CO-SUPERVISOR)

EMAIL

NAME (PRINT)

EMAIL

NAME (PRINT)

EMAIL

NAME (PRINT)

SIGNATURE (DIRECTOR OF GRADUATE STUDIES - ACADEMIC UNIT)

FACULTÉ DES ÉTUDES SUPÉRIEURES

ET POSTDOCTORALES

FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND

POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES

LISTE DES EXAMINATEURS POUR

L’ÉVALUATION DE LA THÈSE LIST OF EXAMINERS FOR THE

EVALUATION OF THE THESIS

NOM DU CANDIDAT / NAME OF CANDIDATE

NUMÉRO D’ÉTUDIANT / STUDENT NUMBER

THÈSE DE DOCTORAT /

DOCTORAL THESIS THÈSE DE MAÎTRISE /

MASTER’S THESIS UNITÉ SCOLAIRE / ACADEMIC UNIT

TITRE DE LA TH SE / TITLE OF THESIS

NOM DU DIRECTEUR DE TH SE /

NAME OF THESIS SUPERVISOR

NUMÉRO DE TÉLÉPHONE ET COURRIEL DU DIRECTEUR DE THÈSE /

PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL OF THESIS SUPERVISOR

NOM DU CODIRECTEUR DE THÈSE /

NAME OF THESIS CO-SUPERVISOR

NUMÉRO DE TÉLÉPHONE ET COURRIEL DU CODIRECTEUR DE THÈSE /

PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL OF THESIS CO-SUPERVISOR

DATE PRÉVUE DE LA SOUMISSION DE LA THÈSE / EXPECTED DATE OF THESIS SUBMISSION

EXAMINATEURS PROPOSÉS / PROPOSED EXAMINERS NOM / NAME INSTITUTION ADRESSE POSTALE ET COURRIEL / MAILING ADDRESS AND EMAIL

APPROBATION / APPROVAL

DATE SIGNATURE NOM DU DIRECTEUR DE L’UNITÉ SCOLAIRE OU DE SON DÉLÉGUÉ / NAME OF THE CHAIR OF THE ACADEMIC

UNIT OR HIS DELEGATE

DATE SIGNATURE DOYEN DE LA FÉSP / DEAN OF THE FGPS

Dans le présent formulaire, le genre non marqué, c'est-à-dire le masculin, quand il est employé pour désigner des personnes, renvoie aussi bien à des femmes qu’à des hommes.

POUR REMPLIR CE FORMULAIRE, VEUILLEZ VOUS RÉFÉRER AUX DIRECTIVES À LA PAGE SUIVANTE. TO COMPLETE THIS FORM, PLEASE REFER TO THE GUIDELINES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.

FÉSP – FGPS 2009-06-08

2012-09-20

ELECTRONIC RESEARCH PAPERS

Non-exclusive license to the University of Ottawa

In consideration of the University of Ottawa (the University) making copies of my research paper available to interested persons, I hereby grant a non-exclusive, royalty free license to the University of Ottawa:

1. to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve and communicate my research paper, in whole or in part, and/or my abstract, in whole or in part (collectively hereinafter the Licensed Material) anywhere in the world, for non-commercial purposes, in all forms of media;

2. to authorize, sub-license, sub-contract or procure any of the acts mentioned in paragraph (1).

I represent and promise that the Licensed Material is my original work, does not infringe any rights of others, and that I have the right to make the grant conferred by this non-exclusive license.

I certify that the version of the Licensed Material I am submitting is the same as that approved by my advisory committee.

I retain ownership of the copyright in the Licensed Material, and may deal with the copyright in the Licensed Material, or any part thereof, in any way consistent with the rights granted by me to the University in this non-exclusive license.

I retain moral rights in my thesis in accordance with Section 14 of the Copyright Act.

Where I have used material owned by third party copyright holders, I represent that I have obtained written permissions from such copyright holders and will supply copies of such upon request by the University.

I acknowledge that the University will not distribute the Licensed Material, if, in the reasonable judgment of the University, they believe the said permission of the third party copyright holders has not been secured.

I understand that the University shall not be responsible for any misuse of the License Material by third parties who access the Licensed Material through the University.

STUDENT INFORMATION

LAST NAME

FIRST NAME

STUDENT NUMBER

STUDENT SIGNATURE

DATE YYYY / MM / DD

Return this completed and signed form to your Department or School.

FOR FACULTY USE

FINANCIAL ACCOUNT VERIFIED

THE ORIGINAL COPY OF YOUR DIPLOMA (REGULAR SIZE ONLY) IS OFFERED TO YOU FREE OF CHARGE IN ONE OF THE TWO LAN-GUAGES LISTED (PLEASE CHECK ONE).

ORIGINAL (NO CHARGE)

(REGULAR SIZE ONLY) 10 ½” X 8 ½”

FRENCH

After the convocation ceremony, you can order one or more additional copies of your diploma, or a large format diploma (43.2 cm by 35.6 cm) online through Docu-Net (from uoZone, click on InfoWeb, select Services and then Docu-Net). Please note that we no longer print diplomas in Latin.

SURNAME

The name under which you are listed in uoZone is the one that will be inscribed on your diploma. You can change your name by filling out a Request for Name Change form and providing the supporting documents required. If you will be receiving your diploma at an upcoming convocation ceremony and wish to have your name changed before the diplomas are printed, you must submit your request to InfoService before March 31 for Spring Convocation and September 15 for Fall Convocation. For further information, please review the policy on name changes at http://www.registrar.uottawa.ca/Default.aspx?tabid=3615.

GIVEN NAMES

STUDENT NO. GRAD. YR.

YEAR

1

ENGLISH

YEAR

FRENCH

2 I WISH TO RECEIVE MY DIPLOMA BY MAIL SINCE I WILL NOT ATTEND THE CONVOCATION CEREMONY

ADDRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EFFECTIVE ON

YEAR DAYMONTH

IN THE SPRING

YEAR

IN THE FALL

YEAR

Fill in and sign the form and send it, or submit it in person, to your faculty.

I WISH TO RECEIVE MY DIPLOMA IN PERSON AT THE CONVOCATION CEREMONY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LANGUAGE OF PRONUNCIATION OF YOUR NAME

IN THE SPRING IN THE FALL

ALTHOUGH THE PRONUNCIATION OF SOME NAMES MAY BE APPARENT TO THE PRESENTER, OTHER NAMES MAY REQUIRE SPECIAL ATTENTION. IF YOU BELIEVE THIS TO BE THE CASE WITH YOUR NAME, PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PRONUNCIATION AS BEST YOU CAN IN THE BOX BELOW.

REGI-3163(E) PDF 2014/12 DATE SIGNATURE (STUDENT)

Université d’Ottawa | University of Ottawa

Office of the Registrar

REGISTRATION FOR DEGREE AND REQUEST FOR DIPLOMA

OR

ENGLISH

POSTAL CODE

AREA CODE AND TEL. NO. ................

AREA CODE AND TEL. NO. AT WORK

E-MAIL

I AM CURRENTLY REGISTERED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

FACULTY

DEPARTMENT

INDICATE THE LAST SESSION FOR WHICH YOU WERE REGISTERED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

COMPLETE TITLE OF DEGREE

YES

NOYEAR

I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE INFORMATION EXPLAINING THAT MY PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT.

OR

Notice of Collection of Personal Information

In accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario and with University Policy 90, your personal information is collected under the authority of the University of Ottawa Act, 1965. Your personal information provided on this form will be used by the University for purposes of and those consistent with the administration of University programs and activities and in order to carry out other University services and functions, including recruitment, admission, registration, academic programs, evaluations, financial aid and awards, assisting student associations and graduation. If you have questions about the collection, use and disclosure of your personal information in this notice, please contact InfoService at 613-562-5630 or [email protected].

MASTER’S OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE RESEARCH PAPER EVALUATION GENERAL GUIDELINES RP’s should pose – and attempt to answer - a well-defined research question, and exhibit extensive research and independent synthesis and analysis. Given the diversity of fields, RPs may take a number of different forms, some of which are given below. Please note that this list is intended to be illustrative rather than comprehensive. (1) A literature review (LR), in which the literature bearing on a particular question (or set thereof) is critically assessed and evaluated. In general, such papers should attempt to conform to “best practices” for systematic reviews to the extent that time and logistics permit. In LR, there is no “original” data collection from data sources, and no quantitative analysis. (2) Meta-analysis (MA), in which literature bearing on a particular hypothesis (or set thereof) is gathered in a systematic fashion, data pertaining to effect sizes (or some such) are extracted, and there is quantitative analysis of these data to, for example, estimate (a) overall effect sizes; and/or (b) the effects of moderator variables. MAs should attempt to conform to best practices in meta-analysis to the extent that time and logistics permit. (3) Empirical analysis (EA), in which data are gathered in a systematic fashion, and these data are either used to test a specific hypothesis (or hypotheses) or answer a well-posed question or to generate inferences inductively from the data. EAs may involve analysis of quantitative or qualitative data, or a combination of the two. (4) Environmental Policy Analysis (EPA), in which environmental/sustainability policies, regulations or laws are evaluated with respect to the effectiveness/efficiency/strengths and weaknesses of, for example, design, implementation or enforcement. GENERAL GRADING CRITERIA

Letter grade Percentage Grade definition

A+ 90-100 Excellent

A 85-89 Very good

A– 80-84 Very good

B+ 75-79 Good

B 70-74 Good

C+ 65-69 Adequate

Fail 0-64 Inadequate

2

A+ (90% and above): Outstanding work that demonstrates independent thought and critical reflection and has an excellent research question as well as systematic and persuasive answers to this question. Work demonstrates complete command of the subject, subtlety of interpretation, exceptional critical evaluation of current research and considerable originality. By using appropriate methodology, methods and data sources, the paper provides strong evidence in support of the key claim(s) put forward by the student. Such work is exceptionally well written and presented, with faultless grammar and style. The arguments developed are strong enough to be considered for publication in a peer-reviewed outlet and eligible for prizes. A (85-89%): Work shows a considerable amount of critical thought and independence, a capacity to analyze and synthesize, solid organization, evidence of extensive knowledge base with systematically listed sources and a superior grasp of the subject matter. Work also has very a good research question and develops strong arguments in answering it. This paper surpasses work placed in the A– category in several areas, such as originality, subtlety of interpretation, power of critical analysis, critical evaluation of current research and understanding of research methodology, methods and data. Such work is written and presented to high academic standards and could, in principle, be published with some revisions. A– (80-84%): Driven by a very good research question, the arguments in this paper are sound and convincing, with evidence of a strong grasp of the subject matter, of solid critical thought and analysis and of a very good understanding of the related issues. This paper also shows an awareness of methodological issues and demonstrates an extensive familiarity with the literature. There is clear evidence of independent thought and originality of approach. Examples, empirical illustrations and supporting evidence are valid, reliable and used appropriately while demonstrating clarity and coherence of argumentation and focus on relevant data. The paper does not demonstrate these characteristics as consistently as in the A category. This work is written and presented to very good academic standards. B+ (75-79%): Work of this standard is competent and methodical, indicating a clear understanding of the topic and an ability to critically engage with the debates in the field of inquiry. A good research question is presented and answered in the paper. The main arguments are clear and examples as well as supporting evidence are used appropriately. The work is of weaker quality than that in the A category and displays less originality. The structure of the RP is generally sound, with good organization of ideas, clarity and coherence of exposition and coherent introduction and conclusions. Sources are appropriate, even if their use is not as systematic as work in the categories above. The paper shows analytical power, albeit not as consistently as work in the A- category. The paper is written and presented to good academic standards and is free of major grammatical and syntactic errors. B (70-74%): Work shows some limitations in coverage and some minor errors in fact or credible interpretation. While there is a good research question, and the question is answered in the paper, there is a tendency to accept ideas uncritically. The paper is mostly descriptive with little evidence of analysis. The logic of some sections is flawed, and there may be unsubstantiated conclusions. Work of this standard is less methodical

3

but is competent and indicates a clear understanding of the topic and some ability to critically engage with the debates in the field. Examples and supporting evidence are present but not always optimally deployed. The structure of the paper is generally sound but is somewhat weakened by shortcomings in the organization of ideas as well as the clarity and coherence of their exposition. Sources are not always appropriate. The work shows some analytical qualities but not consistently. The paper is written and presented to acceptable academic standards but may contain some grammatical and syntactic errors. C+ (65-69%): There is a research question, but the question is poorly articulated and/or only partially answered. The work demonstrates a reasonable grasp of the principal materials relevant to the subject that are linked or partially linked through to a partially sustained argumentation from premises to conclusions. The paper has an overall structure that is logical, if not fully thought through. Arguments may display a lack of clarity, sharpness, focus and insufficient appreciation of the context. Obvious points are covered, but the subtleties are missed and there is a tendency to accept received opinions and interpretations with insufficient independent thought and analysis. There are some factual errors and shortcomings in terms of coverage, sources and organization and only limited evidence of sustained critical thought. The text is clear but is weakened by grammatical errors and stylistic shortcomings that nevertheless do not obscure the core meaning. A paper in this category typically makes a number of statements that are not adequately supported by the evidence adduced. Fail: Such work shows a very limited grasp of the basic literature and reveals major errors and/or omissions. The work offers only superficial understanding of the subject matter and/or contains substantial amounts of irrelevant material. There is no answer to the research question. The paper is likely to contain extensive irrelevancies, lack a central thesis, be inconsistent or inadequate in its use of sources and referencing and is repeatedly marred by errors of grammar and syntax. Arguments are barely discernible, very poorly organized and difficult to follow, or may not even be present; the work recites existing knowledge without critical thought. Evidence is likely to be ignored, weak and limited, and the paper contains many unsupported assertions and statements. It may also be poorly written and presented throughout. RESEARCH PAPER EVALUATION PROCESS

1. Research Papers (RP) are submitted on/near July 15; 2. Supervisors and second readers have the next 2 weeks to provide comments (to:

[email protected]), which go both to the student and supervisor; 3. Student revises the RP based on comments (2 weeks), submits final version to

the supervisor by Aug 15th; 4. The supervisor assigns the grade. Please note that it is recommended that the

supervisor consult with the second reader when determining the grade. (This is up to the discretion of the supervisor);

5. The grade is sent to [email protected] by August 29th.

4

DETAILED GRADING CRITERIA FORM Student’s Name ______________________________________________________________________________ Paper Tile: Evaluator’s name: ___________________________________________

Evaluator’s signature: ____________________________________________

Date: __________________________________________________________________________________________ ______/ 15 – Objectives and rationale for the research (12-15) Excellent – Stated in clear and specific terms. It is clear which aspects of the problem will be considered. Objectives are sufficiently scoped to permit analysis in some depth. (9-11) Good – Not stated in terms that are specific enough to define the limits of the problem. Tend to be too broad or narrow for an RP. (< 9) Poor – Stated in terms that are very broad, abstract or vague and are inadequate to (operationally) define the problem. Comments:

5

______/ 30 – Methods The appropriate methodology will depend upon the type of RP (SR, MA or EA). In assigning a score for Methods, evaluators should consider carefully the following questions, not all of which will be relevant to all 3 RP types:

Does the methodology employed conform to existing best practices (SR. MA). Detailed documentation on best practices for SRs and MAs is available from a number of courses, notably the Cochrane Collaboration (e.g. http://handbook.cochrane.org/ )?

Has there been a systematic and comprehensive attempt to identify data or literature sources?

Has there been an attempt to (a) synthesize (combine & integrate) information; (b) evaluate/analyze information to come up with “overall” results? Are the methods of synthesis/analysis appropriate to the hypotheses posed or the stated objectives?

Are inclusion/exclusion criteria for data/information specified, and are they appropriate for the hypotheses/objectives under consideration?

Are potential sources of information bias recognized/acknowledged, and what attempts have been made to reduce/mitigate bias at the data collection stage?

Are the statistical modeling methods that have been employed appropriate, and have they been properly applied?

Are the data that have been collected appropriate to the hypothesis under consideration or the stated objectives?

Comments:

6

_____/40 Results & interpretation The appropriate results will depend upon the type of RP (SR, MA or EA). In assigning a score for Results, evaluators should consider carefully the following questions, not all of which will be relevant to all 3 RP types:

Is there a clear, succinct statement of the major results/findings? Are these (stated) results/findings well supported by the analysis?

Are the presented results and analysis directly relevant to the hypotheses posed or stated objectives?

Is the interpretation of the results logically consistent? Does the author seem to understand the (inevitable) implicit (and untested) assumptions underlying his/her interpretation?

Is the issue of potential impacts of bias appropriately recognized and addressed in the author’s interpretation of the results?

Are alternative interpretations/explanations/hypotheses considered? Has the author considered how these alternatives might be investigated/tested/evaluated?

Does the author recognize the (manifold, invariably) limitations of the study? Is there an explicit consideration of how the study might be improved?

Is there an explicit exploration of the implications of the study findings? Comments:

7

______/15 Presentation (12-15) Excellent – References, figures and tables are easy for the reader to find and follow; legends for figures and tables provide sufficient information. Effective use of tables and graphs where appropriate. Text is well-organized, concise, free of grammatical and syntactical errors. (9-11) Good – Sometimes difficult to find the references, figures, tables etc. referred to in the text. Tables and graphs not always used effectively. Legends provide insufficient or unnecessary information. Some problems in organization and flow of text; text includes some repetitive, vague or imprecise elements, some minor or grammatical or syntactical errors. (< 9) Poor – Difficult to find the references, figures, tables, etc., referred to in the text. Unnecessary or poorly developed tables and/or graphics. Legends provide insufficient or unnecessary information. Major problems in organization and flow of text; text includes many repetitive, vague or imprecise elements, frequent or grammatical or syntactical errors. Comments: FINAL MARK: ______/100