Research Methods
Assessment 1 (feedback)
Positives
 Good depth of critique and counter critique in places.
 Good linking of Brymen’s theory and cross sectional
design theory with specifics of your own developing
hypothesis/research proposal - detailing, for
example, the two variables then connecting back
accurately to explicit content explanations.
 In places some of you have further backed this up
with additional reference to further academic sources
Constructive
 In the online discussion forum good evidence in
places of constructive criticism where strong
observations are made then quickly qualified with
however, followed by further suggestions to improve
the argument/take the debate forward.
 Some very definite and clear positions taken in
relation to choosing qualitative over quantitative with
many observing the academic trend of combining
both.
Polite and Helpful
 Evidence of polite and helpful suggestions – in places some
observations were a little too superficial, some not citing
detailed academic sources for further reference, and some
over opinionated responses – in future back opinions up
with hard empirical evidence, quoting further academic
sources.
 Some made the error of mixing up the practice forum with
the assessment forum – try to read moodle more carefully
in future, particularly when it comes to assessment.
Observation
 Good observation in places of the need to
background your own research proposal ideas to add
depth to the online discussion forum arguments.
 Some very good points (and supported/critiqued on
line) in relation to linking the type of research method
with the best suited proposal – taking into account/
and arguing well the importance of effectively
connecting both.
Case Studies
 Some good reference to breast cancer case study
discussed in the tutorials with clear exposition as to
why case study assisted with deeper understanding
of cross sectional design theory.
 Some good critiques in relation to the potential of
bias being created in the research process, dipping
back in to theoretical examples to further elucidate.
Qualified Critiques
 Evidence of critiques that demonstrate both strong
and weaker points of some of the arguments – the
best of these offer solutions post-critique and
successfully embrace Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ ideas
in terms of middle ground thinking/ pulling some of
the more borderline ideas/intellectual arguments
back to the middle ground – Group A in particular
demonstrating strength in this area.