COM265 Quantitative Research Methods
Semester 2, 2024-2025
Research Proposal
Deadline: 23:59 on Wednesday, April 16, 2025
Submission method: LMO
Word limit: 1600 (+/- 15%) excluding reference list.
Weight: 50% of the final grade
Resit: S
Learning Outcomes:
A. Demonstrate an understanding of the nature and processes of quantitative research
C. Evaluate the significance and quality of quantitative scholarly works
Overview
You will create a research project by completing one of the research proposal forms on LMO (found in the folder labeled "Research Proposal Forms”). The goal of this assignment is to outline a plan for an empirical, quantitative study in a compelling and realistic manner. Collaboration with other students on the research proposal is not permitted. You must develop a relevant and engaging research question, justify its scientific and social significance, discuss the theoretical background of your research question, and formulate at least two testable hypotheses. Next, you should define the relevant constructs in the hypotheses, select an appropriate quantitative method, explain the design of your proposed study, and provide a brief interpretation of the expected outcomes from your proposed study. Further details can be found in the Research Proposal Forms.
Things You Must Be Aware Of
Literature: The research proposal must include an appropriate number of sources, particularly in the ‘scientific background' section. However, more significant than the quantity of sources is the depth of your discussion regarding these sources. Your analysis should demonstrate that you have carefully read these sources, considered their content, and related it to your research design. Merely citing a large volume of literature superficially will not lead to a good grade.
Writing Style. Please write in a concise, simple, and clear style. Avoid overly long and complex sentences and ensure the reader can follow the logic of your argument. Should you use AI tools to edit and polish your writings, please cite such use in line with the latest APA standards.
Format & Ethics: The research proposal must adhere to the latest APA formatting standards. Direct quotations must be clearly indicated with quotation marks and should include the source. Plagiarism and other violations of academic integrity will be penalized according to XJTLU guidelines.
Marking Criteria
|
Key Aspects
|
Poor
|
Unsatisfactory
|
Average
|
Satisfactory
|
Excellent
|
|
Research Question and Relevance (10%)
|
The research question is absent or meaningless; societal and scientific relevance of the topic are not justified. (0-2%)
|
The research question is vague or incoherent; societal and scientific relevance of the topic are not justified sufficiently. (3-4%)
|
A clear research question is stated; societal and scientific relevance of the topic are justified sufficiently. (5-6%)
|
There is a well-formulated, relevant, and interesting research question; societal and scientific relevance of the topic are justified convincingly. (7-8%)
|
There is a highly interesting and innovative research question; societal and scientific relevance of the topic are argued engagingly and convincingly. (9-10%)
|
|
Scientific Background, Hypotheses, and Definitions (35%)
|
Very little relevant literature is discussed; no testable hypotheses are derived logically from the theory; no usable definitions of constructs are given. (0-7%)
|
Little relevant literature is discussed; hypotheses are not testable or derived logically from the theory; constructs are defined poorly. (8-14%)
|
Sufficient relevant literature is discussed; testable hypotheses are derived logically from the theory; definitions of constructs are given. (15-21%)
|
Sufficient relevant literature is discussed in depth; interesting testable hypotheses are derived logically from the theory; novel and useful definitions of constructs are given. (22-28%)
|
A large amount of relevant literature is discussed in great depth; very interesting testable hypotheses are derived in a logical and highly creative way; highly insightful, useful and novel definitions of central concepts are given. (29-35%)
|
|
Methods and Study Design (40%)
|
The choice of quantitative method is not justified sufficiently; the design of the method is not explained sufficiently; sampling and recruitment are not explained; prospective methodological difficulties and their solutions are not discussed. (0-8%)
|
The choice of quantitative method is justified poorly; the design of the method is vague and unconvincing; the plans for sampling and recruitment lack depth or are not viable; prospective methodological difficulties and their solutions are only discussed perfunctorily. (9-16%)
|
The choice of quantitative method is justified sufficiently; the design of the method is explained; plans for sampling and recruitment are viable; prospective methodological difficulties and their solutions are discussed. (17-24%)
|
The choice of quantitative method is justified convincingly; the design of the method is explained in depth; sampling and recruitment strategies are explained convincingly; prospective methodological difficulties and their solutions are discussed in an insightful way. (25-32%)
|
The choice of quantitative method is argued brilliantly; the design of the method is explained in great depth; sampling and recruitment strategies are explained very convincingly; prospective methodological difficulties and their solutions are discussed in an insightful and highly creative way. (33-40%)
|
|
Expected Outcomes, Discussion, and Conclusion (15%)
|
The interpretation of the expected outcomes is missing or completely unconvincing; there are no valid alternative explanations. (0-3%)
|
The interpretation and discussion of the expected outcomes is vague and unconvincing; the alternative explanations are shallow and not logical. (4-6%)
|
There is sufficient interpretation and discussion of the expected outcomes; there are valid alternative explanations. (7-9%)
|
There is a good interpretation and discussion of the expected outcomes; the alternative explanations are insightful. (10-12%)
|
There is a brilliant and deep interpretation and discussion of the expected outcomes; the alternative explanations are highly insightful. (13-15%)
|