JNL6210 Research Methods

Module guide 2021-2022

Autumn Semester - 15 Credits

Module Convenor
Dr Jared Ahmad

Module tutor(s):
Dr. Jared Ahmad – j.ahmad@sheffield.ac.uk
Dr. Sara McConnell – s.mcconnell@sheffield.ac.uk
Dr Ilya Yablokov - i.yablokov@sheffield.ac.uk

Lecture Time: Friday 9-10am

Venue(s):
Diamond, Lecture Theatre 6 – Weeks 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11
Diamond, Lecture Theatre 4 – Weeks 3, 6, 8, 9 only

Seminars: Thursdays and Fridays (see your timetable)

Module Description and Aims
This module is designed as an introduction to social scientific research methods as they are
applied for the study of communications, media and journalism. The module provides an
overview of key research methods and the different ways in which research can be conducted.
Topics covered encompass qualitative and quantitative research methods, such as content,
framing, and discourse analysis, and you will also be given introductions to other approaches
such as social media research methods, interviews and the ethics of the research process.

The overarching aim of the module is to help you identify a topic that you can research for your
dissertation (in the case of IPPC MA students) or final project (for Science Communication MA
students). In that respect, you should use the assignments on this module to help plan and
organise your research accordingly, and it is hoped that the work you produce on JNL6210 will
form the basis of your semester 2 dissertation or final project.

Learning Outcomes
The module has been designed to help you to think about and begin the groundwork for your
future dissertation projects. On completion of the module you will have an understanding of:

 The nature of research and the research process

 The relationship between theory and method in the social sciences

 The strengths and weaknesses of a broad range of approaches and methods for analysing
media and communication processes

 How to formulate research questions, conceptualise research problems, design and carry out
small-scale social science research

 How to collect, manage, analyse and interpret social science research data

 How to apply selected approaches/methods in research

 The importance of ethical issues for the research process and the various levels of risk in
research

Teaching and learning practices

2
The module consists of 11 lectures and 8 seminars. Lectures are designed to provide you with an
introduction to the topic conveying some of the basic concepts and contexts covered on this
module. They are designed to provide a foundation for further study and should not be relied
upon as an exclusive source of learning. Lectures will be delivered online either as live sessions
via Blackboard Collaborate or as pre-recorded videos.

Seminars provide you with a further opportunity to discuss some of the theories, concepts and
methods introduced in the lectures in more detail. Where possible, seminars will be delivered via
a blended mixture of face-to-face and online sessions and you are expected to contribute to class
discussions and small group work. In this regard, you should read all of the required
articles/chapters prior to your seminar and be willing to discuss the content and concepts covered
within these readings.

Referencing, plagiarism and unfair means

Please make every effort to familiarise yourself with departmental guidelines on referencing,
plagiarism and unfair means.

The guidelines can be found here: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/library/idlt/referencing, and there

is also useful short video here: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ssid/unfair-means/video

Referencing correctly is important for a number of reasons:

 It is evidence of the reading you have done and provides support for your own
arguments.
 It allows you to show your understanding of the issues involved in your subject and your
ability to critically apply that understanding.
 It provides sufficient information for someone to follow up your reference and trace the
item.
 It helps you avoid plagiarism by acknowledging the ideas, opinions and quotations that
you have used in your own work.

Plagiarism is using the ideas or work of another person (this includes academic and
fellow/former students, and also includes reusing your own work from different modules) and
submitting them as your own. It is considered dishonest and unprofessional.

Plagiarism may take the form of cutting and pasting, closely paraphrasing ideas, passages,
sections, sentences, paragraphs, drawings, graphs and other graphical material from books,
articles, internet sites or any other source and submitting them for assessment without
appropriate acknowledgement.

Assessment Details
There are two components to the JNL6210 assessment which are both designed to help you identify a
topic for your semester 2 dissertation projects:

1. 2 × 350 word Blackboard Journal entries (40% of your mark)

3
2. 1500 word research proposal essay (60% of your mark)

Blackboard Journal Entries

You will complete 2 short journal entries (350 word +/- 10% and NOT including your
bibliography) over the course of the first 12 weeks of teaching.

These Journal Entries should be viewed as a learning tool to help you reflect on the issues covered
in the lectures and seminars, while also giving your tutors an opportunity to provide early feedback
on your early dissertation ideas.

In that respect, you should focus each entry on a topic that you would like to write about for your
semester 2 dissertation project. That way the work you do now will help you in planning your
research proposal assignment. You can also use material discussed in the journals in your research
proposal assignment as both pieces of work are designed to complement one another.

The topics and deadlines for the Journal Entries are as follows:

1. Journal Entry 1 (Wednesday 20th October, before 1pm)

2. Journal Entry 2 (Wednesday 24th November, before 1pm)

What should I include in my Journal Entries?

You will find more information on the JNL6210 Blackboard site (“Details and Submission”), but
below is some general advice on how to approach the Journals:

1. You can write in either the first/third person, and can include your own opinion.
2. You should focus the entries as much as possible on your own research interests and ideas,
and each entry is designed to help you develop your dissertation ideas.
3. You must include academic references (around 3-5 per entry) and a short bibliography (not
included in the word-count). You can also include images, figures and/or hyperlinks, if
relevant to the Journal topic.
4. You can use your journal entries to help write your final research proposal assignment, and
you can use material covered in each entry in your research proposal. However, please keep
in mind that one of the principle purposes of the Journals is to improve and develop your
ideas, so simply copy-and-pasting content from one assignment to the next is not always
wise. Instead, you should use the feedback to strengthen your work in the next assignment.

Research proposal essay: Monday 19th January 2022, before 1pm

The research proposal essay is 1500 words in length (+/- 10% and NOT including your bibliography).

The main purpose of this assignment is to help you to identify a topic to research for your dissertation or
final project and receive early feedback on those ideas. However, you DO NOT have to continue with this
research topic if you decide to change your mind in semester 2.

Your research proposal essay should include the following:

4
 (1) Title: The title of your dissertation is important as it acts as a focus for your project while also
attracting the attention of the reader. Try to be clear as possible and include all of your main key
words.
(2) Introduction: The introduction should clearly state what the overall topic of your dissertation is
and why it is relevant. It should also provide an appropriate context or background to the subject
area and outline the overall structure of the research proposal. Overall, the introduction should be
roughly 150 words in length.
(3) Literature review: A good literature review will help identify the current state of knowledge
surrounding a topic, while also indicating any gaps that exist. Your literature review should aim
to critically evaluate around 8-10 scholarly works (e.g. books, articles, research reports, etc.) and
will ideally be around 500 words in length.

(4) Research aims and question(s): Good research has clear aims and objectives and is guided by
precise, doable research questions. Your research question(s) should be clear, focused and
answerable. You should aim to include around 2-4 research questions. This section will be around
200 words.
(5) Methodology: Your methodology should identify the main method(s) you intend to use in the
dissertation, and, using relevant academic literature, critically reflect on the strengths and
weaknesses of your chosen method(s). It should be clear why these methods are appropriate and
how they will help you answer your research question(s). In addition, you should also discuss the
data you intend to analyse (e.g. how much, what timeframe, how you will access the data, etc.).

As part of your methodology, you are also expected to briefly reflect on any ethical issues that
may arise when conducting research for your dissertation project. For example, will your research
involve ‘’human participants’’ (e.g. interviews, surveys, focus groups) or contain data taken from
human participants (i.e. user-generated social media data or content).

If there is no need for an ethics application (e.g. if you are analysing news coverage of an issue),
you need to explain why this is the case. Overall, the methodology section should be
approximately 500 words.
(6) Conclusion: The conclusion should remind the reader of the importance and significance of your
proposed research, and outline a clear plan for your dissertation research. The conclusion should
be around 150 words in length.
(7) Bibliography: You should include a bibliography of works cited at the end of your research
proposal. This should only include the articles, books, research papers and any other sources you
have referred to in the text. Please note that this is NOT included in your final word count.
Lecture schedule:
Week/Date Lecture Topic
Theatre
Week 1 Diamond Lecture 1:
Friday 1st LT 6 What is research and what are research methods?
October Dr Jared Ahmad
Week 2 Diamond Lecture 2:
Friday 8th LT 6 What is “the literature” and what does it mean to be “critical”?
October Dr Sara McConnell

Week 3 Diamond Lecture 3:

Friday 15th LT 4 What are research ethics and why are they important?
October Dr Stef Pukallus

5
Week 4 Diamond Lecture 4:
Friday 22nd LT 6 What are qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods?
October Dr Jingrong Tong

Week 5 Diamond Lecture 5:

Friday 29th LT 6 Introducing content analysis
October Dr Jared Ahmad

Week 6 Diamond Lecture 6:

Friday 5th LT 4 Introducing framing analysis
November Dr Jared Ahmad

Week 7 Diamond Lecture 7:

Friday 12th LT 6 Introducing critical discourse analysis
November Dr James Whitworth

Week 8 Diamond Lecture 8:

Friday 19th LT 4 Introducing social media analysis
November Dr Jingrong Tong

Week 9 Diamond Lecture 9:

Friday 26th LT 4 Introducing interviews, focus groups and survey methods
November Dr Emma Heywood

Week 10 Diamond Lecture 11:

Friday 3rd LT 6 Planning your dissertation research (working with your supervisor,
December planning your next steps)
Dr Sara McConnell

Week 11 Diamond Lecture 10:

Friday 10th LT 6 Final research proposal planning session
December Dr Jared Ahmad

Please see the JNL6210 Blackboard pages for lecture slides and recordings (“Weekly content”
folder)
Seminar schedule, topics & required readings:

Seminar 1: Identifying your research interests & potential

topics

Thursday 7th Building on the first lecture, the first seminar focuses on what makes good
or Friday 8th research and the research process more broadly. In particular, we will talk
October about your research interests and ideas while thinking about how they can
be developed into dissertation-length projects. In addition, we will also
discuss some of the common mistakes people make when undertaking
dissertation-length research projects.

Required readings:

6
 ▪ Anders Hansen & David Machin (2013), Media and Communication
Research Methods. Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan. Chapter 1:
“Introduction”, pp. 1-13 [Available on Blackboard].

▪ Tom Clark, Liam Foster & Alan Bryman (2019), How to Do Your Social
Research Project or Dissertation. Oxford: Oxon. Chapter 4: “Developing a
Research Idea”, pp. 49-65 [Available on Blackboard].

Seminar 2: Looking for literature and “being critical”

Thursday The second seminar focuses on reviewing “the literature”. In particular, we

14th or will discuss what literature reviews are and why they are important,
Friday 15th alongside what makes a good (or bad) literature review. We will also
October discuss what it means to “be critical” and how you can improve your
critical thinking skills.

Required readings:

▪ Tom Clark, Liam Foster & Alan Bryman (2019), How to Do Your Social
Research Project or Dissertation. Oxford: Oxon. Chapter 5 – “Conducting
a Literature Search”, pp. 65-86 [Available on Blackboard].

▪ Gary Thomas (2017), How To Do Your Research Project: A Guide For

Students. 3rd Ed. London: SAGE. Chapter 3: “The Literature Review”, pp.
57-89 [Available on Blackboard].

▪ Stella Cottrell (2011), Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective

Analysis and Argument. 2nd Ed. Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan. Chapter
1: “What is Critical Thinking?”, pp. 1-16 [Available on Blackboard].

Seminar 3: Making sense of research ethics

Thursday This seminar focuses on research ethics and integrity, and their importance
21st or within the broader research process, alongside issues surrounding
Friday 22nd confidentiality, sensitivity, informed consent and the ethics application
October process. We will discuss a number of case studies (based on previous
examples of ethics applications) and will also introduce you to the levels of
risk that may be involved in your own research projects.

Required readings:

▪ Sharlene Hesse-Biber & Patricia Leavy (2011), The Practice of

Qualitative Research. 2nd Ed. London: SAGE. Chapter 4 “The Ethics of
Social Research”, pp. 59-89 [Available on Blackboard]

7
 ▪ The Department of Journalism Studies “Research Ethics Policy”.
Available at https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/journalism/research/ethics [See
also Blackboard]

Seminar 4: Deciding on an approach

Thursday Seminar four focuses on the topic of deciding on an approach to your

28th or research. We return to some of the philosophical questions discussed in
Friday 29th lecture 1 (e.g. what is ontology and epistemology) and discuss how these
October debates have a significant bearing on the methods you select (i.e.
qualitative, quantitative, mixed). Students will have the opportunity to
discuss what makes a good research proposal and will also be able to raise
broader questions about research design, the research process or methods
more generally.

Required reading:

▪ Alan Bryman et al (2021), Bryman’s Social Research Methods. 6th Ed.

Oxford: University of Oxford Press. Chapter 2 “Social Research Strategies:
Quantitative and Qualitative Research”, pp. 16-37 [Available on
Blackboard].

Seminar 5: Introducing content analysis

Thursday 4th Building on the lecture, seminar 5 looks in more detail at the popular
or Friday 5th method of content analysis. We will discuss what content analysis is, what
November it does, how useful it can be, what kinds of research projects it is suited to,
and also what the method’s major limitations are. Students will also have
an opportunity to test the method a number of texts and sources provided
in the seminar.

Required readings:

▪ Anders Hansen & David Machin (2013), Media and Communication

Research Methods (Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan), Chapter 5 “Content
Analysis”, pp. 188-115 [Available on Blackboard]

▪ Darren Lilleker & Pawel Surowiec (2019), “Content Analysis and the
Examination of Digital Propaganda on Social Media”, in Paul Baines,
Nicholas O’Shaugnessey & Nancy Snow (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of

8
 Propaganda. London: SAGE, pp. 171-188 [Available on Blackboard].

Seminar 6: Introducing framing analysis

Thursday This seminar will focus in more detail on framing analysis. We will discuss
11th or where framing analysis is situated within broader “textual” methods and
Friday 12th approaches), and then turn our attention to the various uses and limitations
November of this method. Students will also have an opportunity to test framing
methodology on a number of texts and sources provided in the seminar.

Required readings:

▪ Robert Entman (2004), Projections of Power: Framing News, Public

Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chapter 1: “Projecting Power in the News”, pp. 1-28 [Available on
Blackboard].

▪ Jared Ahmad (2020), “Constructing the Islamic State: Analysing the

Interplay between Media and Policy Frames in the Aftermath of the
November 13th 2015 Paris Attacks”, Critical Studies on Terrorism, Vol. 13,
No. 4, pp. 568-590 [Available on Blackboard].

Seminar 7: Introducing discourse analysis

Thursday Seminar 7 focuses on discourse analytical approaches. We will first discuss

18th or what “discourse” is, and the various approaches to discourse analysis (i.e.
Friday 19th discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, multimodal discourse
November analysis), before assessing the strengths and weakness of this fascinating
methodology. As with previous seminars, students will also have the
opportunity to “test” this approach on a range of textual sources provided
in the seminars.

Required readings:

▪ Anders Hansen & David Machin (2013), Media and Communication

Research Methods (Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan), Chapter 6 “Critical
Discourse Analysis”, pp. 116-146. [Available on Blackboard].

▪ John Richardson (2007), Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from

Critical Discourse Analysis (Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan), Chapter 2
“Analysing Newspapers: Context, Text and Consequence”, pp. 15-45
[Available on Blackboard].

9
 Seminar 8: Introducing interview & focus group research
methods

Thursday The final seminar concentrates on interview and focus group research
25th or methods. We will discuss where interviews are situated in the various
Friday 26th methodological approaches discussed elsewhere on the module, the ethical
November dimension of interviews, alongside what types of interview/focus group
methods there are, and, importantly, how to get your interviews right the
first time round!

Required readings:

▪ Steinar Kvale (2007), Doing Interviews. SAGE, Los Angeles, London.

Chapter 1 “Introduction to Interview Research”, pp. 1-10 [Available on
Blackboard and StarPlus].

▪ Anders Hansen & David Machin (2013), Media and Communication

Research Methods (Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan), Chapter 10 “Focus
Group and Interviewing”, pp. 222-247. [Available on Blackboard].

Further reading on research methods and dissertation

writing:
The following reading list expands on each seminar topic/method. In order to develop your
understanding of research methods, however, it is advisable to read several texts on any
particular method and to familiarise yourself with a range of methods and approaches before
developing your study. You should also read beyond this reading list and only use it as a
starting-out point for further research.

General reading on dissertation research and writing:

• John Biggam (2008) Succeeding with Your Master’s Dissertation: A Step-by-Step Handbook.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.

• Tom Clarke et al (2019) How to Do Your Social Research Project or Dissertation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

• Stella Cottrell (2006) Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Arguments.
Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan.

• Gary Thomas (2013) How to Do Your Research Project: A Guide for Students in Education
and Applied Social Sciences. 2nd Ed. London: SAGE.

General reading on social sciences and media and communication research methods:

10
• Asa Berger (2000) Media and Communication Research: An Introduction to Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. London: SAGE.

• David Deacon et al (2005) Researching Communications. London: Arnold.

• Anders Hansen et al (1998) Mass Communication Research Methods. London: Macmillan.

General reading on research ethics and integrity:

• Tom Byrne (2016) Research Ethics. London: SAGE.

• Tom Clark et al (2019), How to Do Your Social Research Project or Dissertation. Oxford:
OUP, 2019. Chapter 8 “Ethics”, pp. 121-144.

• Sharlene Hesse-Beber & Patricia Leavy (2011) The Practice of Qualitative Research. (2nd ed).
London: SAGE, Chapter 4, “The Ethics of Social Research”, pp. 59-89.

• Paul Oliver (2010) The Student’s Guide to Research Ethics. 2nd Ed. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.

• The University of Sheffield Research Ethics Committee (UREC) has a website that is full of
useful advice and guidance on all aspects of research ethics:
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/rs/ethicsandintegrity/ethicspolicy/approval-procedure

• The SAGE research methods map has lots of additional readings and resources on research
ethics: https://methods.sagepub.com/methods-map/research-ethics

General reading on content analysis:

• Bernard Berelson (1952) Content Analysis in Communication Research. Glen Coe: Free Press.

• Anders Hansen et al (1998) Mass Communication Research Methods. London: Macmillan,

Chapter 5: “Content Analysis”, pp. 91-130.

• Ole Holsti (1969) Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

• Klaus Krippendorf (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 2nd Ed.
London: Sage.

• Kim Neuendorf (2002) The Content Analysis Guidebook. London: Sage.

General reading on framing analysis:

• Paul D’Angelo & Jim Kuypers (Eds.) (2010) Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and
Theoretical Perspectives. London: Routledge.

• Robert Entman (1993) “Framing: Towards a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm”, Journal of

Communication, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 51-58.

11
• Robert Entman (2004) Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign
Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

• Sophie Lechler & Claes de Vreese (2018), News Framing Effects. London: Routledge.
Available as a free download at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-
mono/10.4324/9781315208077/news-framing-effects-sophie-lecheler-claes-de-vreese

• Zhongdang Pan & Gerald Koisicki (1993) “Framing Analysis: An Approach to News
Discourse”, Political Communication, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 55-75.

General reading on discourse analysis, critical and multimodal discourse analysis:

• Martin Conboy (2007) The Language of News. Abingdon: Routledge.

• Norman Fairclough (1995) Media Discourse. London: Arnold.

• Norman Faircough (2013) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Study of Language. 2nd Ed.
London: Routledge.

• Marianne Jørgensen & Louise Phillips (2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method.
London: SAGE. Chapter 3 “Critical Discourse Analysis”, pp. 60-95.

• David Machin & Andreja Mayr (2012) How to do Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal
Introduction. London: SAGE.

General reading on social media research methods:

• Klaus Bredl et al (Eds.) (2017) Methods for Analysing Social Media. London: Routledge.

• Robert Kozinets (2020) Netnography: The Essential Guide to Qualitative Social Media
Research. 3rd Ed. London: SAGE.

• Ray Poynter (2010) The Handbook of Online and Social Media Research: Tools and
Techniques for Market Researchers. Surrey: Wiley.

• Luke Sloan & Anabel Haase (2017) The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods.
London: SAGE.

• Tamara Small (2011) “What the Hashtag? A Content Analysis of Canadian Politics on
Twitter”. Information, Communication & Society. Vol, 14, No. 6, pp.872-895.

General reading on interview and focus group research:

• Andrea Fontana & James Frey (2000) “The Interview: From Structured Questions to
Negotiated Text”. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative
Research. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 695-728.

• Jaber Gubrium & James Holstein (Eds.) (2001) The Handbook of Interviewing: Context and
Method. London: Sage.

12
 • Steinar Kvale (1996) InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.
London: SAGE.

• Robert Merton et al (1990) The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures. 2nd
Ed. New York: Collier Macmillan.

• David Silverman (2001) “Interviews”. In David Silverman, Interpreting Qualitative Data.

London: SAGE.

Marking criteria for the Blackboard Journal Entries

Criteria 80 to 100% 70 to 79% 60 to 69% 50 to 59% 1 to 49%

Journal entry Outstanding Excellent Very good Good Poor
1: Your identification of a identification of a identification of a identification of identification of
research research topic and research topic and research topic and research topic and topic and
interests and questions: questions: questions: questions: questions:
potential
research ▪ Research topic is ▪ Research topic is ▪ Research topic is ▪ Research topic ▪ Research topic
questions extremely clear, very clear, well generally clear, may be vague and is vague, lacks
well justified and justified and justified, and lacking in detail relevance or lacks
relevant relevant relevant knowledge.

▪Research questions ▪Research questions ▪Research questions ▪Research ▪Research

are rich, detailed, are highly relevant are relevant and questions are questions are
manageable and and manageable manageable for a quite broad or inappropriate or
distinct dissertation appear too general unfeasible

▪ Methods are ▪ Methods are ideal ▪ Methods are ▪ Methods are

perfect for for addressing the generally suitable vague or not ▪ Methods are
addressing the topic topic and the for addressing the suitable for poorly identified
and the questions questions topic and the addressing the and inappropriate
questions topic or research for the topic or
questions research
questions
Journal entry Outstanding Excellent Very good Good Poor justification
2: Choosing methodological methodological methodological methodological and choice of
the right tools reflection and reflection and reflection and reflection and methods:
for the job justification of justification of justification of justification for
choice of methods: choice of methods: choice of methods: methods:

▪Outstanding ▪Excellent ▪Very good ▪ Good ▪ Methods are

identification and identification and identification and identification either poor or
discussion of discussion of discussion of methods, but may research is
research methods research methods research methods be unfeasible unfeasible

▪ Outstanding ▪ Excellent ▪ Very good ▪ Good ▪ Poor knowledge

13
 knowledge of knowledge of knowledge of knowledge of of methods and
methods and their methods and their methods and their methods, but may related issues
relevance relevance relevance lack relevance

▪Outstanding ▪Excellent ▪Very good ▪ Good ▪ Research data is

identification of identification of identification of identification of unmanageable
research data and research data and research data and data, but is either and lacks
awareness of awareness of awareness of unmanageable or awareness of
potential barriers of potential barriers of potential barriers of unaware of barriers to access
access access access barriers to access

▪ Outstanding ▪ Excellent ▪ Very good ▪ Good discussion ▪ Poor discussion

discussion of discussion of discussion of of research ethics, of research ethics
research ethics and research ethics and research ethics and but lacks and lacks
awareness of risk awareness of risk awareness of risk awareness of risk awareness of risk
levels levels levels levels levels
Marking criteria for the Research Proposal assignment

MARK CRITERIA

80-100%  Demonstrates outstanding knowledge and understanding of

Work of a high Distinction
standard
“Work of outstanding quality,
which displays an expert-level
command of the subject area”
70%-79%
Work of a Distinction standard
“Work of exceptional quality,
which displays an excellent
command of the subject area”
60-69%
Work of a Merit standard
“Very good work with a strong
command of the subject.”
50-59%
Work of a Pass standard
“Good work with some command
of the subject – This represents
the minimum performance
required on a Masters course”
1-49%
Work of a Fail standard
“Work in this range does not
reach postgraduate standard”
the subject area
 Clear evidence of wide-ranging research of the relevant
academic literature
 Outstanding analysis/analytical skills and engagement with
appropriate methodological concepts
 Outstanding structure, organisation and presentation
 Demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding of the
subject area
 Evidence of wide-ranging research of the relevant academic
literature
 Excellent analysis/analytical skills and engagement with
appropriate methodological concepts
 Excellent structure, organisation and presentation
 Demonstrates very good knowledge and understanding of the
subject area
 Engages effectively with the relevant core academic
literature
 Very good analysis and engagement with appropriate
methodological concepts
 Very good structure, organisation and presentation
 Good understanding of the subject area, but with gaps in
knowledge
 Engages well with the relevant core academic literature
 Good analysis and discussion with appropriate
methodological concepts, but descriptive in nature
 Good structure, organisation and presentation
 Basic knowledge and understanding of the subject
 Lack of evidence of research or poor use of sources
 Basic discussion of methods or methodological concepts
 Basic discussion of data sources or lack of acknowledgement
of appropriate data
 Poor structure, organisation and presentation

14
15