1 of 4
Research Methodology Assignment 3:
Research proposal
Due: Monday, 05 June 2017 at 11.59 pm electronically via Blackboard Marks: 50%
Overview
Students are required to write a detailed research proposal for their actual or anticipated research project.
In this assessment, students will draw on the feedback from previous assessments to explain how they will
design and execute a successful research project.
Purposes
This assignment will require students to complete a proposal that draws together the practical and ethical
considerations necessary to undertake a research project in your chosen scientific discipline. This will help
students in their future research, because they will:
• convince the assessor that the research is worthwhile and they are the appropriate investigator to
undertake it successfully;
• be well aware of previous and current work in the area through a critical review of previous
literature to identify the gaps in knowledge and formulate appropriate research question(s);
• have considered the social and ethical implications of their research, including relevant legislation,
data management provisions and/or occupational health and safety as applicable to their discipline;
and
• have a sound workable and achievable research methodology that includes a realistic timeline and
considers contingency plans to ensure a successful project.
As well as preparing for a research project, this assignment may help to request funds for projects in
academic and industrial environments (e.g., a request to management for a new project). It will also
ensure that you have a research project that is feasible for the standard of degree that students seek.
Instructions
Use the modified version of the Australian Research Council's application form, which can be downloaded
from Blackboard. Please do not reformat it.
For the approach and methodology section, you should consider items such as the data gathering process
(if applicable), the experimental design and controls, appropriate methods for the analysis and
presentation of the data, such as particular statistical methods. You should make use of the material
gained from all the lectures and workshops, as well as your own additional reading to formulate the
approach and methodology. Ultimately, you should propose a project that is “ready to go”.
Submission
Please submit your typed work as a Word document or PDF before the due date and time using
Blackboard. This will pass your work through the text-matching service Turnitin. You are encouraged to
submit a draft using the same link and review the originality report before submitting your final
assessment. Instructions are available here:
• Submitting or resubmitting your assignment
• Reviewing your originality report
If you resubmit your work, it will overwrite the previous submissions. If you resubmit work after the due
date, it will be marked as late or not marked at all if received greater than seven calendar days after the
due date. Emailed assignments will not be accepted. The PDF must be named as follows:
“[student ID][student name]-RM3.pdf”, e.g., “12345678JoeBloggs-RM3.pdf”.2 of 4
Assessment
The student work will be assessed against four criteria, each having a number of sub criteria, to arrive at a
mark out of 100 that represents 50% of the final mark in this unit.
1. Background and aims, significance and innovation (20 marks): The background must be thorough,
and aims well-articulated and linked to a gap the literature. There must be clear and measureable
outcomes. The significance and innovation must be clearly demonstrated, with compelling
demonstration of the likely outcomes.
2. Approach and methodology (40 marks): The approach and methodology must be clearly
articulated, with a purposeful design to the research, appropriate methods for the question at-hand
and within the norms of the discipline, and contingency plans in place to allow for a successful
outcome.
3. Research ethics and societal impact (20 marks): There must be a clear articulation of the research
ethics, legislative requirements, occupational health and safety, and/or data management and
sharing implications of this research. This should be in the form of an impact statement, and must
demonstrate a risk analysis approach. Appropriate Curtin policies should also be consulted.
4. Structure and style (20 marks): The proposal must adhere to strict specifications, with each section
completed in full. The overall structure should be clearly signposted, with an identifiable structure
within each paragraph and connection between paragraphs. The students must adopt a formal and
consistent scientific writing style, using appropriate syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
References must be integrated into the text, should be compared and contrasted, and use an
appropriate referencing style (e.g. APA, Chicago, Vancouver, etc) and prominence (author or
information).
Self evaluation (introspection)
You should review your work using the rubric before you submit the assignment. However, your final mark
will be derived from staff assessment, rather than your self -evaluation. The purpose of this self-evaluation
is to help you learn to accurately judge the quality of your proposal. Read the proposal with the
assessment questions in mind and determine how well you have answered them. In short, you should
come away from reading your proposal thinking that it is “ready to go” and could be given to someone else
in your discipline as a recipe for them to do the work under your guidance.
Prepared by: Will Featherstone and Daniel Southam
Moderated by Emma Pearson and Chris Rawson
Last updated: 02 Mar 20173 of 4
Criterion Sub criterion Marks Performance rating descriptor
% Absent Novice Emerging Proficient Excellent
0 25 50 75 100
Title, form completion
and summaries 5
No title provided.
Form incomplete.
Filename
convention not
followed.
Title vague or illdefined. Form
partially complete.
Summaries
unclear,
incomplete or over
length.
Title not central to
the argument; not
searchable. Form
complete with few
errors. Summaries
clear, complete
and answer
questions asked.
Clear, arguable
statement of
position, some
searchable terms.
Form complete.
Summaries clear,
complete and
answer questions
asked. Accurate
key words.
Clear, accurate,
well-defined title:
is sophisticated in
both statement and
insight, clearly
searchable terms
used. Form
complete with no
errors whatsoever.
Summaries clear,
complete and
answer questions
asked. Accurate
keywords.
Aims and background 10
No literature
review. Aim(s)
and objectives not
stated.
Some literature
review, but out of
context. Unclear
aim(s). No link
between aims and
background.
Literature review
identifies gaps in
knowledge.
Aim(s) stated, and
linked to
background.
Literature review
identifies gaps in
knowledge.
Aim(s) clear,
unambiguous and
follow from
background.
Expected
outcomes stated.
Thorough
literature review,
identifying gaps in
knowledge. Very
well articulated
aim(s), linking to
established gaps in
the literature.
Clear and
measureable
outcomes.
Significance and
innovation 10
No argument of
significance. No
argument of
innovation.
Significance not
compelling or
backed up.
Innovation(s)
unclear.
Significance and
innovation
explained
Significance and
innovation well
argued and backed
up with identified
gaps in
knowledge.
Significance
compelling and
backed up with
examples.
Innovation clearly
true with
demonstration that
it has not been
done before.
Approach and methodology
Experimental
design 20
No experimental
design. No
controls.
Some
experimental
design, but not
thought through.
Some controls on
the experiments.
Sound
experimental
design, with
identification of
variables. Controls
specified.
Evidence of some
pilot studies.
Solid experimental
design, with
identification of
key variables.
Feasibility
demonstrated.
Controls and their
limitations
identified.
Thorough
experimental
design, with
identification of
key variables and
limitations
Feasibility
demonstrated.
Well controlled
experiments taking
into account error
sources.
Analysis
methods 15
No analysis
methods given.
Analysis methods
mentioned, but not
explained well.
Analysis based on
existing and cited
methods used in
the field of study.
Analysis based on
existing cited
methods.
Statistical or
deterministic
methods
described. Some
discrimination
between causation
and association.
Full statistical or
deterministic
analysis. Novel
methods
identified. Cross
validation. Clear
identification of
causation versus
association.4 of 4
Criterion Sub criterion Marks Performance rating descriptor
% Absent Novice Emerging Proficient Excellent
0 25 50 75 100
Approach and methodology
Contingency
plans 5
No contingencies
considered.
Some
contingencies
considered but the
project is at risk of
failure.
Contingencies
considered and a
project could be
completed if
followed.
Contingencies
considered and
could lead to a
project of similar
quality if
followed.
A range of
multiple
contingencies
identified. All
would lead to
satisfaction of
modified aims and
outcomes.
Research
ethics 10
No ethics
considered.
Some ethical
considerations but
incomplete.
Ethical
considerations
made according to
discipline
practices.
Ethical
considerations
made according to
discipline
practices and
University policy.
Full range of
ethics considered
for main project
and contingency.
Uses discipline
practices and
University policy.
Societal
impact 10
No societal impact
considered
Some societal
impact but not
well argued.
Impact of the
research
considered.
Impact of the
research
considered and
well argued
A compelling case
that this research
will “change the
world” for the
better.
Structure and style (as per previous assignments)
Overall
structure 5
Little or no
identifiable
paragraph
structure.
Poor logical flow
with poor
paragraph
structure. No
identifiable topic
sentence with poor
support No
transition to the
next paragraph.
Occasional logical
flow, with some
clarity or precision
but poor paragraph
structure, no
identifiable topic
sentence, support
for the topic
sentence, or
transition to the
next paragraph.
Some logical flow,
but lacking clarity,
precision or
sophistication with
a paragraph
structure that has
an identifiable
topic sentence, but
lacking support for
the topic sentence,
or transition to the
next paragraph
Good logical flow,
with clarity,
precision and
sophistication.
Good paragraph
structure with an
identifiable topic
sentence, and
support for the
topic sentence, and
transition to the
next paragraph.
Scientific
writing style 5
The scientific
writing style is
inconsistent and
informal.
The scientific
writing style does
not flow smoothly
because of
consistently
inappropriate
syntax, grammar
and formality.
The scientific
writing style
occasionally
flows, but lacks
appropriate syntax,
grammar or
formality.
The scientific
writing style has
acceptable syntax,
grammar and
formality, but
lacks maturity and
proficiency.
The scientific
writing flows well
and has mature
syntax, grammar
and formality.
Citations and referencing
(as per previous
assignments)
5
No references are
integrated. No
referencing style is
identifiable.
References are
poorly integrated,
do not support the
argument, and are
not contrasted.
The referencing
style is
inconsistent or
inappropriate.
References are
inconsistently
integrated, and do
not support the
argument or are
not contrasted.
The referencing is
inconsistent in
style, prominence,
and placement.
References are
integrated, and
only occasionally
support the
argument, or are
contrasted. The
referencing is
partially consistent
in style,
prominence, or
placement.
References are
well integrated,
support the
argument, and are
contrasted. The
referencing is fully
consistent in style,
prominence, and
placement.
Total 100