Assessed Methodology Report Marking Criteria
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages: 5-10 Instructions:
Assessed Methodology Report Marking Criteria
ANTH0130
Assessed Methodology Report Marking CriteriaAssessment description:
The methodology report is intended to directly integrate methodological training with your individual dissertation research and can be discussed with your supervisor as part of developing a robust dissertation research design. The report should outline the topic of your proposed individual dissertation project, and be followed by an extended methodology section explaining in detail what anthropological methods you will use to obtain the necessary empirical evidence required to answer your dissertation research question(s).The report must include the following:
(i) A prospective title (however hypothetical at this stage)
(ii) A description of a research topic that identifies a clearly defined set of research questions in relation to the relevant anthropological literature / debates.
(iii) A concise outline of the proposed field site, the research participants and other important elements for research such as specific materials, resources or places.TIP: In this section you need to ask yourself: what am I am trying find out? Why is this research important for anthropology? How does my research connect to other anthropological studies on similar topics and engage with anthropological concepts and debates?
(iv) The methodological steps by which ethnographic data and/or other relevant empirical materials are to be obtained, together with analysis of how these methods will enable you to address the research questions outlined in the opening description of the research. This section should amount to no more than 1000 words.
This section should include a detailed discussion of all methods you intend to use and a justification of these methodological decisions in relation to gathering appropriate evidence to answer your research question(s). Methods could include (but are not limited to): participant observation, interviews (of any kind), focus groups, archival research and digital methodologies. If you are doing field research with people involving participant observation, you will need to ask yourself: what will participant observation actually entail? What kind of social, everyday activities do I need to observe and participate in so I can obtain evidence to answer my research question? Who will I need to speak to, and why? What places / spaces do I need to visit, for example, domestic, public, religious, or professional spheres – and why? It is fleshing out these kinds of questions- however hypothetical at this stage – that is essential to the success of the report.
It is also important to consider how the different methods support and resonate with one another in the pursuit of your research question(s). For example, ask yourself: how do interviews supplement my participant observation? And in turn, what kind of data will they produce to help me answer my research questions? Likewise, if you intend to use specific methods such as a multi- sited approach (cf. Marcus 1995) or visual techniques or participatory ethnography then you
ustify why this particular methodological approach is appropriate for answering your research question, and (b) explain how you will go about implementing this method.
You might also want to consider the positionality of your interlocutors: who are they and how does their positionality impact your proposed research? Likewise, you could also reflect on your own positionality and any ethical considerations this might raise and discuss, where relevant, how this will impede or facilitate your proposed research.
If you are doing a library based project you also need to produce a well-defined methodological strategy, detailing what sources will be used, how sources and other published materials will be selected and analysed, what other forms of empirical data will inform the argument (such as publically available archives, internet sources or public forums) and so on.
Structure and Referencing:
You can decide how to structure your methods report but one option is to use subsections that follow the outline above e.g. Research Title
Research Description and Research Question(s)
Field Site Description
Methodology – this section can be divided into further sub headings if appropriate.
A bibliography must be provided for any cited works. The use of literature is not essential but can be included where it supports methodological decisions. For example, if you cite methodological concepts and / or frameworks, these will need to be appropriately referenced as well as tightly connected to the pursuit of your research questions.
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Assessed Methodology Report Marking Criteria
Assessed Methodology Report Marking Criteria