USPJW9-45-M (DiP)/USPJRP-45-M (DfPC) Dissertation in Psychology Assessment Brief 2024-25 V2 | UWE Bristol

Size or length of assessment: 

The report of an original piece of research has an absolute maximum word count of 8,000 words (excluding the title page, any acknowledgements, contents page, reference list and appendices but including EVERYTHING else). The journal justification/presentation reflection has an absolute maximum word count of 500 words (excluding the reference list). The lay summary/LinkedIn style blog post has an absolute maximum word count 500 words (excluding the reference list). There is no +/- 10% policy; the specified word limits are the absolute maximum content length. There is no maximum word count for the presentation of the final results of the research.

Module learning outcomes assessed by this task:

Carry out a critical literature review in a chosen area of psychology and psychotherapy:

• MA Music Therapy students must conduct their dissertation on a topic relevant to music therapy.
• MSc Business Psychology students must conduct their dissertation on a topic relevant to business psychology.
• MSc Health Psychology students must conduct their dissertation on a topic relevant to health psychology.
• MSc Occupational Psychology students must conduct their dissertation on a topic relevant to occupational psychology.
• MSc Psychology (Conversion) students must conduct their dissertation on a topic relevant to psychology.
• MSc Sport and Exercise Psychology students must conduct their dissertation on a topic relevant to sport and exercise psychology.
• Identify and locate a research question within that area. Select and defend a quantitative or qualitative (or mixed-methods) approach to the research question.
• Design a research protocol.
• Plan and execute a piece of independent research.
• Quantitatively and/or qualitatively analyse and interpret the data collected and defend both the analysis and interpretation.
• Critically locate the research findings in relation to published work.
• Produce a written report and presentation of the results of the research demonstrating an in-depth understanding of the chosen area of study.

Use of AI in assessment: 

AI is not to be used. You are still permitted to use Studiosity Studiosity - Study support | UWE Bristol, dictionaries, thesauri, spelling and grammar- checking software to help identify and correct spelling mistakes and grammatical errors (even if they are powered by Gen AI). However, you should not use any software to rewrite sentences or make substantive changes to your original text. Please note that inappropriate use of Gen AI is considered to be an assessment offence.

For more advice on this please see your Generative AI study skills guide.

Guidance on Referencing:

Please note that the aim of referencing is to demonstrate you have read and understood a range of sources to evidence your key points. You need to list the references consistently and in such a way as to ensure the reader can follow up on the sources for themselves.

Your dissertation must be appropriately and thoroughly referenced throughout using the Harvard referencing system. The reference section must include a full reference for each journal article, book, book chapter or report cited in the text – there is no requirement to follow a particular version of Harvard. You can choose to follow:

• the referencing guidelines in your Programme Handbook
• the referencing guidance for your chosen journal (as long as this is a version of Harvard)
• the UWE Harvard referencing guidance: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills/referencing.aspx
• APA referencing guidance: https://apastyle.apa.org/
• BPS referencing guidelines (this includes a very useful style guide for report writing): https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bps-style-guide-authors-and-editors

Submission and feedback dates

Submission deadline: Before 14:00 on Tuesday 9 September 2025. Is eligible for 48 hour late submission window.

Submission format: Submit ONE Microsoft Word file attachment with a .doc or .docx file extension for the main dissertation portfolio including your research report, journal justification/presentation reflection, LinkedIn blog post/lay summary and appendices. Your

oral presentation slides/poster should be submitted as a separate file - attach both the Word file and your presentation file to the same submission.

Marks and Feedback due on: Thursday 9 October 2025.

N.B. all times are 24-hour clock, current local time (at time of submission) in the UK
Marks and Feedback will be provided via: A feedback form.

Completing your assessment

What am I required to do on this assessment?

You are required to submit a ‘dissertation portfolio’ containing the following four elements:

1. 6-8,000-word (8,000-word absolute maximum) report of an original piece of research written in the form of a journal article (the word count excludes the title and contents page, any acknowledgements, the reference list and any appendices but includes EVERYTHING else).
2. For MA Music Therapy, MSc Health Psychology, MSc Occupational Psychology, MSc Psychology (Conversion) and MSc Sport and Exercise Psychology students, a 500-word (absolute maximum) explanation and justification of the academic journal the paper is (hypothetically) written for (the word count excludes a reference list). For MSc Business Psychology students, a 500-word (absolute maximum) reflection on the experience of presenting the final results/outcome of the research (the word count excludes a reference list).
3. A copy of a poster or slides from an oral presentation of the final research results/outcomes at an appropriate academic conference or in another appropriate setting. The presentation setting should be agreed with the module leader in advance of the presentation if not presenting at the UWE Psychology Postgraduate Conference (see below for guidance on good slide/poster design; there is no word count for this element of the portfolio). This means you must give a presentation of the final results/outcomes of your research to fulfil the requirements of the portfolio. The presentation itself is not directly assessed – i.e., you won’t receive a mark for your presentation, you just need to give a presentation – what is assessed is the poster or presentation slides.
4. For MA Music Therapy, MSc Health Psychology, MSc Psychology (Conversion) and MSc Sport and Exercise Psychology students, a 500-word (absolute maximum) lay summary of the final results/outcome of the research (the word count excludes a reference list). For MSc Business Psychology and MSc Occupational Psychology students, a 500-word (absolute maximum) LinkedIn style blog post of the final results/outcome of the research (the word count excludes a reference list). NB this doesn’t have to be posted on LinkedIn, it is just written in the form of a LinkedIn blog post.

Detailed guidance

1.6,000-8,000-word report of an original piece of research

The 6,000-8,000-word report of an original piece of research on a topic relevant to your programme of study should be written in the form of a journal article (the exception to the journal article format is the inclusion of appendices). You should select an appropriate journal and (hypothetically) write your report for that journal (with the particular readership of that journal in mind). Look at articles in your selected journal and use these as a loose guide for formatting your dissertation (please prioritise good practice in creating an accessible document over and above the house style of your chosen journal). Your dissertation should contain the following major elements (but you should select sub-headings appropriate to your research and your selected journal):

• The title of the journal that your dissertation is written for
• A title
• An abstract (200 words approx.)
• An introduction/literature review (1,500-2,500 words approx.)
• A method/ology section (1,000-1,500 words approx.)
• Results/Analysis (1,000-3,000 words approx.) and a separate Discussion (1,000-3,000 words approx.) (which should end with a concluding paragraph) OR a combined Results/Analysis and Discussion (4,000 approx.) (with a separate general discussion/longer conclusion) (1,000 words approx.).
• A reference list (not included in the word count) with 40-50+ references
• Appendices (not included in the word count)
• Please do not use footnotes or endnotes

As a general rule, we expect quantitative dissertations to be closer to 6,000 words (unless reporting a particularly complex methodology/study design) and qualitative dissertations to be closer to 8,000 words. The word count includes everything (the abstract, tables, figures, data quotations) except the title and contents pages, any acknowledgements, the reference list and the appendices. The appendices should be used for supplementary material like your research materials and other relevant documentation (e.g., consent form, participant information sheet, data generation tools, ethics application, health and safety risk assessment, evidence of ethical approval, supervision records signed off by your supervisor) as well as the ‘paper trail’ for a qualitative analysis; they should not be used for material that is integral for understanding the research report (e.g., there should be a summary of demographic data in the research report, but the appendices can be used for an expanded table of demographic data). In other words, the appendices should not be used to expand the word count.

Please note that although most people do opt to generate primary data for their dissertation (e.g., interview or questionnaire data generated from a group of participants specifically recruited for your research), it is not an expectation. The British Psychological Society (BPS) only stipulates that you should conduct a piece of empirical research. This means that the use of secondary data sources is perfectly acceptable.

2) Explanation and justification of choice of academic journal/presentation reflection

The second element of the portfolio is either a 500-word absolute maximum journal justification or a 500-word absolute maximum reflection on your experience of presenting the final results/outcomes of your research.

MA Music Therapy, MSc Health Psychology, MSc Occupational Psychology, MSc Psychology (Conversion) and MSc Sport and Exercise psychology students should write the 500-word journal justification.
MSc Business Psychology student should write the 500-word presentation reflection.

Journal justification

You should explain the reasons why you selected the journal your dissertation is hypothetically written for. You can select any journal that is appropriate to your programme of study – either a general journal for the field (e.g., using examples from health psychology, the Journal of Health Psychology, British Journal of Health Psychology), a (interdisciplinary) journal related to the broader field of research (e.g., interdisciplinary health research, Social Science & Medicine), a journal from a related field (e.g., British Medical Journal) or a more specialist and subject- specific journal (e.g., International Journal of Eating Disorders, Body Image, AIDS Care: Psychological and Socio-medical Aspects of AIDS/HIV). When selecting a journal, you should consider some or all of the following issues:

• Who do you want to communicate your research to? A particular group of researchers or practitioners? Does your research have relevance for practice? For future research on your topic? Do you want to influence policy?
• Is your research likely to be published by the journal (hypothetically of course!)? Look both at the journal ‘aims and scope’ and articles recently published in the journal (NB some journals change editors every few years, and new editors sometimes make significant changes to the aims and scope of a journal – e.g., a journal that has published qualitative research in the past no longer publishes qualitative research). This question is generally trickier for qualitative research – some journals are very reluctant to publish qualitative research or publish only particular kinds of qualitative research. There is little tradition of qualitative research in the US (although this is slowly changing) – so many US psychology journals are unlikely to publish qualitative research, particularly non-positivist qualitative research.
• Do you cite papers from your chosen journal? (This can be a good test of fit – are you contributing to ongoing debates/discussions in the journal?)
• Have members of the editorial board authored any of the key papers you cite? This can demonstrate a good fit between your interests and the interests of the journal editors.
• Do you want your research to have impact? If so, then the prestige of the journal is likely to be important. One – controversial – measure of journal prestige is impact factors (a measure of how frequently articles published in a given journal are cited in other journals – more citations = a higher impact factor = supposedly, higher prestige; publishers typically include the impact factors for their journals on the journal website). If your chosen journal is part of a membership package for a professional body (e.g. members of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy receive the journal Counselling and Psychotherapy Research as part of their membership), publishing in this type of journal is a good way to reach a large number of members of a particular profession and increase the likelihood of your research having impact.

It is not required that you include references in this reflection – but you may do so (the reference list is not included in the word count).

You should discuss and agree your choice of journal with your supervisor. They can also give you feedback on a draft of your journal justification.

Presentation reflection

You should briefly (absolute maximum 500 words) reflect on your experience of presenting the final results/outcomes of your research. In writing your reflection, you may like to consider some or all of the following points in relation to your presentations:

• What went well?
• What went less well? How could you improve your presentation skills for the future?
• Did you receive any useful feedback on your research?
• Did you select an appropriate conference at which to present your research? Was your presentation appropriate for the audience?
• Have you made any changes to your presentation slides/poster design following the presentation? What did you change and why?

You may also wish to use a reflective model to help you structure your reflections, such as Brookfield (1998), Gibbs (1988), or Rolfe et al. (2001).

It is not required that you include references in this reflection – but you may do so (the reference list is not included in the word count).

Please discuss your presentation reflection with your supervisor. They can give you feedback on your presentation reflection.

References

Brookfield, S. (1998). Critically reflective practice. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 18, 197–205.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.
Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., & Jasper, M. (2001). Critical reflection in nursing and the helping professions: A user’s guide. Palgrave Macmillan.

3) A copy of a poster or slides from an oral presentation of the final research results/outcomes at an appropriate academic conference

You are expected to give a presentation of the final results/outcomes of your research at an appropriate academic conference or another appropriate setting– this can be the annual UWE Psychology Postgraduate Conference (the 2025 conference will be on Tuesday 2 September 2025), or another academic conference, a work place or placement setting. If you want to present your research at a conference or setting other than the Psychology Postgraduate Conference please discuss with your supervisor whether this conference/setting is suitable. If presenting elsewhere, this should be agreed with the module leader before the portfolio submission deadline and evidence provided in the portfolio submission (e.g. conference programme, email from placement supervisor/workplace manager etc.). 

Please note that the presentation isn’t directly assessed, you just need to give a presentation to fulfil the requirements of the portfolio – what is assessed, and included in the portfolio, are your oral presentation slides/poster.

You can make some types of changes/edits to your oral presentation slides/poster after the presentation and before submitting your portfolio – permissible changes include things like correcting typos and other errors, changing the slide/poster design and layout, changing the font size and style, changing the colour scheme, and removing/adding images. If you do not give a presentation of the final results/outcomes of your research, you cannot edit the slides/poster to update the content from work in progress or preliminary results/outcomes to final results/outcomes. The intent of making changes is to respond to feedback and reflect any learning about effective poster/presentation slide use and design. If presenting at the UWE Psychology Postgraduate Conference, do ask staff attending for feedback on your oral presentation slides/poster design.

Please discuss your presentation with your supervisor. They can give you feedback on your presentation slides/poster design.
If you’re unsure about whether the changes you want to make are permissible, please check with your supervisor or the module leader.

4)Lay summary of the final results/outcome of the research/LinkedIn style blog post

An important academic skill - particularly for those engaged in applied and publicly funded research - is communicating the results/outcomes of research to a wider audience. The final element of the portfolio is either a 500-word absolute maximum lay summary of the final results/outcomes of your research or a 500-word absolute maximum LinkedIn style blog post summarising the final results/outcomes of your research.

MA Music Therapy, MSc Health Psychology, MSc Psychology (Conversion) and MSc Sport and Exercise psychology students should write the 500-word lay summary.

MSc Business Psychology and MSc Occupational Psychology students should write the 500-word LinkedIn style blog post.

Lay summary

You should reflect on which non-academic groups would be interested in your research findings - your participants? Patients impacted by a particular condition? The wider public more generally? – and write a lay summary of your research for this audience. The summary should not assume any academic knowledge of the topic, should be written in clear and accessible language (avoiding jargon and specialist terminology – such as, in relation to qualitative research, interpretative phenomenological analysis, reflexivity) and should convey the key “take home” messages of your research in an engaging fashion. The lay summary should indicate the intended audience for the summary – e.g., a good opening sentence would be something like… This non-technical summary is written for…

It is not required that you include references in the lay summary – but you may do so (the reference list is not included in the word count). Please present references to existing literature in the main text of the lay summary in a way that are accessible to a non-academic reader.

Think about how journalists reference research – they usual refer to the researcher(s) by their first and last name and title and their university initially (e.g., Associate Professor Caroline Flurey from the University of the West of England…) and then by their last name only.

You should discuss your lay summary with your supervisor. They can also give you feedback on a draft of your lay summary.

LinkedIn style blog post

This element of the portfolio is a 500-word absolute maximum LinkedIn blog post about the final results/outcomes of your research; you don’t have to actually post this on LinkedIn for the purposes of this assessment but you can choose to do so. You should reflect on who would be interested in your research findings and an accessible of your research for this audience. The summary should not assume any academic knowledge of the topic, should be written in clear and accessible language (avoiding jargon and specialist terminology – such as, in relation to qualitative research, interpretative phenomenological analysis, reflexivity) and should convey the key “take home” messages of your research in an engaging fashion.

It is not required that you include references in the blog post – but you may do so (the reference list is not included in the word count). Please format references to existing literature in the main text of the blog post in a way that are accessible to a non-academic reader. Think about how journalists reference research – they usual refer to the researcher(s) by their first and last name and title and their university initially (e.g., Associate Professor Caroline Flurey from the University of the West of England…) and then by their last name only.
You should discuss your blog post with your supervisor. They can also give you feedback on a draft of your blog post.

What is the procedure for marking and feedback?

The dissertation will be assessed by two markers – in most circumstances, your supervisor (first marker) and another member of the MSc/MA dissertation supervisory team (second marker). Both will mark independently and then share feedback and provisional marks and agree a mark. This mark is then submitted to the relevant external examiners, who moderate all of the dissertation marks. Your mark is final when it has been ratified by the October Field Board. On the dissertation feedback sheet (available on Blackboard; please cut and paste into your submission) you will receive feedback on each element of the portfolio and an overall mark for the portfolio.

Where should I start?

As this is a dissertation module, you need to start by identifying an appropriate supervisor, and they need to agree to supervise your project, and then you can work with your supervisor to write your ethics application and if required a health and safety risk

assessment. Because you need to include your research materials, including your data generation tools (possibly in draft form), with your ethics application - in order to write your ethics application, you need to develop a detailed plan your research.

Guidance on writing up your dissertation

• Title: This must accurately and succinctly describe the study. A good title informs the reader of what the project is about (the topic and perhaps also the approach) and may even hint at the results. Here are some examples:
• Drink driving: The ineffectiveness of advertisements
• A comparison of the relaxing effects of meditation versus cold baths
• Experiences of acquired facial disfigurement: An IPA study
• “Not hiding, not shouting, just me”: Gay men negotiate their visual identities

In qualitative research reports, vivid data quotations, or paraphrases of data quotations, that capture the essence of your analysis can make engaging titles (followed by an explanatory sub-title).

Abstract:

This brief outline of the research should stand on its own and enable a reader to find out what the study is about, what methods were used and the main results/themes etc. The abstract is usually written last even though it comes at the beginning. In academic research articles, abstracts are often published more widely than whole papers and are therefore read on their own. They need to be clear and comprehensive and serve the purpose of alerting other researchers to the question being asked, methods used, participants/sample involved, results/analysis and conclusions drawn.

The main body of the report should also stand-alone – you cannot assume the reader has read the abstract. In this instance, they will of course! But academic conventions for writing abstracts and reports require that both stand alone.

Introduction:

This serves two main functions:

1. It reviews or contextualises your research in relation to the relevant literature, theory and concepts (and where relevant the wider socio-cultural context), with references. In areas where little research has been done, you may be able to provide a complete literature review. In many areas this is impossible but you should aim to describe the main theories or ideas in your area and critically discuss the most relevant studies.
2. From this you can explain why you carried out the research you did. For example, it might be to replicate or extend a previous study or to improve on someone else's method (NB the rationale need not be methodological). It might be to fill a gap in our knowledge or to challenge someone else's theory. You should state clearly the aims of the project/the research questions/the hypotheses. By the end of the introduction it should be clear why you have done this particular piece of research. Look at the introductions in journal articles published in your selected journal for inspiration; you may like to model your introduction on those. In qualitative research, your research question may evolve, as you generate and analyse your data

– in a more reflexive report, in the introduction or methodology, you may find it useful to discuss how your research question evolved.

Research Design: You should state whether the study is qualitative or quantitative (or uses a mixed-methods design) and what kind of data generation methods were used, such as a survey, experiment, case study, interviews and so on. State the statistical tests or analytic methods used. You may need to justify or explain your choice of method if many possibilities were available – this is expected in qualitative research.

If a quantitative project, state whether you have used an experimental design (participants are randomly assigned into manipulated conditions), quasi-experimental design (participants are compared using pre-existing conditions, such as gender or job role), cross- sectional design (where you collect descriptive data at a fixed point in time), or longitudinal design (where you collect data at different timepoints). If you are employing an experimental design, state whether it is between-participants (comparing individual groups), within-participants (comparing the same individuals across conditions) or a mixed design (between and within comparisons).

In qualitative reports and in some quantitative reports (depending on the research design), you do not necessarily have to have a separate heading/section for ‘research design’, method/ology can suffice.

Method/ology (typically method in most quantitative research, method or methodology in qualitative research): Describe what you did and where appropriate explain why you did it. The purpose of this section is to give a detailed account of the study, ideally to enable someone else to replicate it (replicability is not something qualitative research generally aspires to, but nonetheless a useful maxim for writing a methods section in a qualitative report is to write it in a way that would allow another researcher to use your main methods and procedures; obviously, they can’t replicate your subjectivity!).

Include information for any of the following which are relevant (providing both rationale for design choices where appropriate and a description of procedure):

• For qualitative reports, in general, rationale is discussed before procedure (so discuss why you selected IPA and qualitative interviews before you discuss how you used these methods), and methodology (the theoretically-informed framework guiding the conduct of your research) is discussed before method (techniques for generating and analysing data).
• If your research involves human participants, who your participants are (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, social class, occupation/employment, sexuality, relationship status, disability, age, religion) – this information can be presented in narrative form and/or summarised in a table (in a table be mindful of participant anonymity; aggregated demographic information is preferable for this reason).
• How you accessed and recruited your participants, the sampling strategy or the constitution of the participant group/dataset. In quantitative research, was the purpose of the study etc. concealed from participants? Where relevant, discuss the assignment of participants to groups.
• Procedures around informed consent (include copies of your research materials in your appendices), and – for quantitative studies – debriefing; reference the ethical code guiding the conduct of the study, provide a statement of ethical approval and specify from which ethics committee this was obtained – the Psychology Ethics Committee (low risk) or the College Research Ethics Committee (high risk)?
• Details of data generation (state exactly what was done and in what order). In quantitative studies:
• Number of trials or sessions
• Randomisation of subjects, stimuli, targets etc.
• Equipment (e.g., tape recorders, stop watches, GSR, EEG)
• Stimuli (e.g., in vision or memory research)
• Instruments (e.g., scales, questionnaires, questionnaire development)
• Recording method (e.g., for observational studies)
• Pilot studies
• Experimenters or observers (if there is more than one) In qualitative studies, provide details of:
• Development of interview/focus group guides or other data generation materials.
• Where data were generated (online, interviews in participants’ homes or place of work)? Some indication of the volume of data/scope of the dataset (e.g., for interviews and focus groups, the average length and range)? The recording and transcription of audio-data? (Describe what system of transcription notation was used and provide a transcription key in the appendices.)
• How data were analysed – outline how you implemented your chosen method (don’t just describe the generic procedures but explain how exactly you engaged with the analytic procedures associated with your chosen method).
• The use of any quality techniques or strategies.
• Any relevant issues such as insider/outsider dynamics, researching the ‘other’,
  researcher reflexivity.
• Cite relevant methodological literature throughout.
• It’s acceptable and often desirable – depending on the approach taken – to write in the first person in the method/ology section (and in other sections), especially when discussing researcher reflexivity.
  In quantitative studies, provide details of:
• Any stimuli used, such as experimental manipulations you created or adapted for your study. This could be anything that participants viewed or interacted with.
• The measures you used, including the number of items in scales, an example scale item, how items were scored, how scales were formulated, a citation for any validated scale used, some justification for your choice of measure, and the details of any item/scale randomisation.
• What participants saw and did in chronological order.

Results/Analysis:

Results/analysis sections will vary according to the methodological approach. When taking a quantitative approach, present your results as clearly and concisely as possible, including descriptive statistics and inferential statistics as appropriate. If there are several research questions given in the introduction, it is helpful to follow the same order in the results section. Simple tables and figures summarising the results are usually helpful. Label them clearly. Where many separate tables of results are produced, it is usually best to consign them to an appendix. Avoid unnecessary repetition – if statistics are in a table, they do not need to be in text also. Statistical analysis must be correctly reported, for example:

the difference was non-significant (t (20)= 1.95, p>.05) showed a significant positive correlation (r = 0.89, p<0.05) relationship was found (χ2 (1)= 3.95, p < .05)

It should be clear from the results section whether your findings have answered the questions you posed or whether your hypotheses were confirmed.

In qualitative research, this section can be titled Results, Findings or Analysis. When taking a qualitative approach, your analysis must be transparent. Provide data quotations as evidence to support your analytic claims. Provide a brief overview of your analysis (following any conventions for your chosen method) at the end of the methodology or start of the analysis and then discuss theme-by-theme (or category-by-category etc.). See the assessment criteria for guidance on good and bad practices in reporting a qualitative analysis. In qualitative reports, the ‘results and discussion’ are often combined (and the analysis is contextualised in relation to existing research and theory as it is presented), followed by a general discussion (in which overall conclusions are drawn, the contributions of the study to relevant literature are highlighted and the study is evaluated/reflected on, and suggestions are made for future research etc.). Discuss with your supervisor whether to use the combined or separate ‘results and discussion’ format (you could consult qualitative articles in your chosen journal, but be mindful that published qualitative research is of varied quality and doesn’t always exemplify what qualitative methodologists regard as best practice).

Discussion: In this section you should interpret and/or contextualise your results/analysis in relation to existing literature (if you have not done so in the previous section – qualitative research only). In quantitative dissertations, you may consider whether you were able to test your hypotheses properly and if so whether they were confirmed. You may discuss whether you were able to answer the questions you posed. In both qualitative and quantitative research, consider what other implications and conclusions you can draw and how your results relate to previous work, including the research and theory outlined in the introduction. In qualitative research, you can also discuss new literature here (in approaches such as IPA, it is appropriate to introduce new literature in the discussion when considering the implications of the analysis).

You should also discuss any drawbacks of your research, any problems encountered in carrying it out and any other criticisms of it that you can make. Suggest limitations of the study and make suggestions for future research arising from your study – don’t switch on the random ideas generator here and make suggestions that are just related to the broad topic area. Instead, reflect on the limitations and implications of your study and think about

how future research could address these. When highlighting the limitations of your sample/participant group and making suggestions for future research with different groups of participants, is there any evidence you can draw on to support the argument that different groups might experience things differently/might produce different results? In quantitative research, are there intriguing findings that didn’t quite reach significance that future research could probe further? In qualitative research, the study evaluation can take the form of a more personal reflection on the methods used, your personal positioning, challenges encountered etc.

Conclusion: 

End your report with one or two paragraphs summing up the key ‘take home’
messages of the study.

References: 

Your dissertation must be appropriately and thoroughly referenced throughout using the Harvard referencing system. The reference section must include a full reference for each journal article, book, book chapter or report cited in the text – there is no requirement to follow a particular version of Harvard. You can choose to follow:

• the referencing guidelines in your Programme Handbook
• the referencing guidance for your chosen journal
• the UWE Harvard referencing guidance: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills/referencing.aspx
• APA referencing guidance: https://apastyle.apa.org/
• BPS referencing guidelines (this includes a very useful style guide for report writing): https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bps-style-guide-authors-and-editors

Appendices:

Put into appendices any supplementary information (the appendices should not be used to expand the word count by including information that is essential to understanding your study).

Essential content: Evidence of ethical approval, consent forms, participant information sheets, calls for participants/study advertisements etc. and other research materials (e.g., questionnaires used, examples of stimuli, interview guides).
Optional to be agreed with supervisor: Summary tables of raw data, transcriber confidentiality agreement, supervisor meeting record and any other information that is deemed valuable.

Do not append full transcripts of qualitative interviews or focus groups without the express permission of the participants. For qualitative reports, it’s good practice to provide an ‘audit trail’ of your analytic processes (e.g., examples of coding, theme development, theme definitions, thematic maps etc.).

Each appendix should be referenced in the main text – for example… Participants were asked to sign a consent form (see Appendix A)…
It’s helpful to include a contents page at the start of the Appendices to orient the reader to the content and the order in which it will be presented.

Grammar: Remember, research reports are written in the past tense when describing what happened (e.g., ‘participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire’). The discussion is written in the past and the present tense (e.g., ‘the result was unexpected, however, a possible

explanation is ...’). There are different styles and conventions for quantitative and qualitative research – quantitative research is typically written in the third-person, whereas qualitative research reports can combine both third- and first-person styles (e.g., when discussing personal reflexivity, it would be very odd to use the third person and refer to yourself as the researcher!).
Presentation/formatting: There are no particular formatting or presentation requirements, but we recommend Calibri 12 pt font (this font!) and 1.5 line spacing (this line spacing!), left-aligned rather than justified text (like this!) and headings in bold, rather than underlined, for maximum accessibility. Using consistent heading levels is helpful – for example:

Level 1: Bold, centre, caps

Level 2: Bold, left aligned, caps
Heading Level 2
Level 3: Bold, left aligned, italics
Heading level 3

Heading Level 1

Titles and sub-headings do not typically have full stops. Please proof read your work carefully (ideally in hard copy) before submission to identify and correct any typos and other errors.

Guidance on Oral and Poster Presentations (from Braun & Clarke, 2013)

There are two main formats for presenting research at psychology conferences:

1. the oral presentation – a spoken account of the research, typically accompanied by Microsoft PowerPoint slides, which usually lasts 15-20 minutes, with an additional 5- 10 minutes allocated to audience questions
2. the poster presentation – a printed depiction of the research, usually displayed with other posters in a large room at a certain allocated time, during which authors will stand next to their posters and answer questions about their research from other conference delegates.
   It can be a challenge to squeeze a rich and complex research narrative into either of these formats!

Oral presentations

Typically, the structure of oral presentations broadly echoes that of a written report. To illustrate this, we provide and discuss an example presentation from Professor Virginia Braun’s research on sexual health in Aotearoa/New Zealand (see Braun, 2008, for the written report), which was presented at the British Psychological Society’s Social Psychology

Section Annual conference (a more general rather than specialist audience). See the Braun and Clarke (2013) companion website for a copy of the Powerpoint slides.
Virginia’s presentation has the following components:

• A title slide
• A short introduction (which contextualises the study in relation to existing research and the wider social context)
• An equally short overview of the study design and methods (focusing on the characteristics of the sample)
• The analysis (the longest section of the presentation)
• A short discussion (focusing on the implications of the study for sexual health promotion and questions for future research and practice)

The goal of an oral presentation is not to provide a detailed discussion of every aspect of the project; it’s about paring back your research to tell a concise story, organised around a central argument. The content of the presentation should be determined in relation to the specific audience – what information is crucial for this audience and what can be left out? In Virginia’s presentation, the theoretical and methodological approach is barely mentioned; she was speaking to an audience familiar with these approaches so a detailed explanation was not necessary. For a specialist sexual health audience, it would have been appropriate to include more methodology, and less topical background information.

Microsoft PowerPoint provides an excellent visual tool to structure and enhance your talk. In Virginia’s presentation, PowerPoint is used to structure the presentation, highlight key information, and present data extracts (she did a lot more talking in relation to each slide than just reiterating the material covered in the slides). The general principles of effective Microsoft PowerPoint use are adhered to:

• The text is an appropriate size (easily readable from the back of a large room); headings are larger than the main text; the typeface is one that is easy to read; darker coloured font is placed on a lighter coloured background (much easier to read for most than dark font on a dark background or light font on a light background)
• There’s an appropriate amount of information on each slide – the slides aren’t crammed; neither do they have lots of blank space
• Colour is used sparingly, consistently and for effect – a lighter blue background; a brighter and darker blue for headings, and purple to highlight data quotes (see the version on the companion website)
• Images are used for emphasis on the final slide (see Boynton, 2016)
• There is a total of 15 slides for a 20 minute presentation

Lots of the slides in this example are qualitative data extracts. If you are presenting qualitative research, data extracts are good to show – they vividly convey the content of the data, and provide a ‘grounding’ for the audience in interpreting your analysis. However, one mistake qualitative researchers often make is expecting people to read and absorb an extract of data at the same time as they present their analysis of it (usually to save time). This is expecting too much of an audience. Plan to read out the data yourself, or pause from speaking to give the audience time to read extracts (and yourself time to take a sip of water). If you are presenting a quantitative study, make it clear what analysis you used and use tables and figures to present your data in a clear and engaging way. In your accompanying oral presentation, highlight the key results and tell the audience what they mean in simple terms.

References

Boynton, P. (2016). The research companion: A practical guide for the social and health sciences (2ND ed.). The Psychology Press.
Braun, V. (2008). ''She'll be right''? National identity explanations for poor sexual health statistics in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Social Science and Medicine, 67(11), 1817-1825.

Oral presentation performance

An oral presentation is not just about the content, and the visual presentation of that content, it’s also crucially about how you present: “you impart significance through the rhythm and pacing of your speech, emotional nuances and enthusiasm, body language, and eye contact with the audience” (Charmaz, 2006: 155). So, think about elements of your own presentation style, and how they may be a help or hindrance to effective presentation.

Reflect on your natural speaking speed – if you’re a fast speaker, you may need to slow down a bit; if you’re slower speaker, you may need to speed up a bit. Practice varying speed, volume and intonation to highlight particular points, and to signpost the shift from one section of the presentation to another. Gestures are another way to emphasise particular points and to signpost changes, but should be used sparingly (for general advice on effective oral presentations, see Bradbury, 2006; Chivers & Shoolbred, 2007; Van Emden & Becker, 2010).

Practice is critical for an effective presentation. Practice in front of an audience (trusted peers, family members, your dog, teddy bear...), and time your presentation carefully. We cannot emphasise timing your presentation enough! There is a tendency for early career researchers to cram in too much detail, and then run out of time. But, when preparing and timing, also be mindful of the fact that when nervous we can speak faster (a presentation precisely timed to last fifteen minutes when spoken slowly at home may be done and dusted in ten minutes). If you think you will speak too fast, write a reminder to yourself in your presentation notes to check your pace, and breathe deeply and slow down if you’re going too fast. However, perfectly timed talks are rare, and a substantial proportion are too long. A tendency to ‘ad lib’ and add material ‘on the spot’ is the chief culprit here. Try to avoid this, as it’s an easy trap for not finishing your presentation (or allow time for it).

Timing notes (of how long a slide or section should take to talk through) are quite handy for keeping you on track. Finally, it’s useful to practice answering questions on your talk (obviously, you will need a human audience for this).

Should you write a full text for your talk, or just notes? That’s up to you, but regardless of what you do, you have to remember that this is a talk, to an audience, and not the reading- out, in a room of people, of a written text (or talking to your notes, the projector, or the computer screen.). You should direct your presentation to the audience; if you’re feeling really nervous, borrow a trick from theatre actors and direct your presentation to a point on the back wall, just above the heads of the audience. If you have your talk written down (which can alleviate nerves somewhat), be wary of reading without any audience eye contact, and speaking in a rapid ‘monotone of terror’ – this doesn’t make for an engaging presentation!

Finally, if the idea of an oral presentation scares you, keep in mind that even the most experienced academics can feel nervous when giving a presentation – it is a rare person who doesn’t experience nerves, or at least a rush of adrenaline, before and during a presentation. For many people, these nerves soon dissipate once they start speaking and become absorbed in the flow of the presentation.

References

Bradbury, A. (2006). Successful presentation skills (3rd ed.). Kogan Page.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practice guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
Chivers, B., & Shoolbred, M. (2007). A student's guide to presentations: Making your presentation count. Sage.
Van Emden, J., & Becker, L. (2010). Presentation skills for students (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Poster presentations

The poster presentation is an even more challenging format and there is “no one right way” (Russell, Gregory, & Gates, 1996: 551) to construct a poster. The trick of a poster is to catch the attention of the viewer – usually it’s competing with lots of other posters for attention (Russell et al., 1996).

A poster should stand alone without any additional information needed from the presenter (Russell et al., 1996). Effective posters: have a clear message; make it easy for the viewer to follow the flow of information, and to read and understand the information presented; keep the amount of words to a minimum; and use visuals to assist the viewer in understanding the textual information presented (see the box below for further guidance). One of the main challenges of poster design is reducing the content down (MacIntosh-Murray, 2007). Decide on your key message, narrow the focus as much as possible, and display information
“simply, clearly, and concisely” (Russell et al., 1996: 544). As with oral presentations, you should allocate about half the poster to presenting your results. You will need to think carefully about how to present your results. If presenting qualitative research, providing a brief overview of your themes, in the form of table or simple thematic map, and selecting a few themes to discuss in more detail, can work well; use brief and vivid quotations to

illustrate themes (Wilson & Hutchinson, 1997). If presenting quantitative research, use tables and graphs to present your findings in a visually appealing way.

The main components or sections of a poster are broadly similar to those in a written report (or oral presentation), with each section of information clear and succinct:

• Title and author(s)’s name(s) and affiliation(s)
• Introduction and purpose of the study, including a sentence on the theoretical/methodological framework
• Methods for generating and analysing data, study design, details of sample/participants
• Results/Analysis
• Conclusion and implications – Russell et al. (1996) found that this section is the one most often missing from qualitative posters, but is frequently the one people read first, to decide if they want to read the rest of the poster; it’s a bit like the abstract in a published report
• Some acknowledgement may also be included (e.g., to a supervisor, participants)

When preparing your poster, give equal attention to the content and the overall design and layout. As Bushy (1991: 11) noted, “a good poster display cannot rescue a bad idea, but a poor one can easily sink the best idea – as well as viewers’ impression of the author”.

Posters contain the following visual elements (as outlined by Russell et al., 1996; Wilson & Hutchinson, 1997):

• Text (which font you use, what size it is and whether you italicise, bold or underline any of it)
• Layout (flow of information)
• Visuals (relevant to the topic)
• Colour scheme

A well-designed poster uses a large font size for the title, which is short, lucid and catchy. Images that are clearly relevant to the topic are used to create warmth and visual interest. The overall layout and organisation is comprehensible and logical; the design is visually pleasing, and balanced. A slightly different background colour can be used for the results/analysis section, which draws the readers’ attention to the most important information. Use bullet points and listing rather than full sentences and paragraphs to maximise readability (use paragraphs effectively to organise the content). Make sure aims of the study are very clearly stated, the method/ology section is concise and pithy, with the main focus on the results/analysis and conclusions/implications. It’s important to note that the ‘rules’ for poster design are not completely rigid (hence the title of the box below); it is possible to break some of the rules and still produce an effective poster.

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage. (Chapter 13: Writing and communicating qualitative research)
Bushy, A. (1991). A rating scale to evaluate research posters. Nurse Educator, 16(1), 11-15.
MacIntosh-Murray, A. (2007). Poster presentations as a genre in knowledge communication.
Science Communication, 28(1), 347-376.
Russell, C. K., Gregory, D. M., & Gates, M. F. (1996). Aesthetics and Substance in Qualitative Research Posters. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 542-552.
Wilson, H. S., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1997). Presenting qualitative research up close: Visual literacy in poster presentations. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Completing a Qualitative Project: Detail and Dialogue (pp. 63-85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Some relatively inflexible guidance for poster design (Ellerbee, 2006; MacIntosh-Murray, 2007; Russell et al., 1996; Wilson & Hutchinson, 1997)
Content

• Keep titles short – while still informative of research question and approach, and catchy (e.g., Should lecturers wear gay slogan t-shirts in the classroom?)
• Keep information to a minimum while leaving the overall message clear – it should take only 30 seconds to get the key message (and no more than 5 minutes to read most or all of the poster)
• The poster should work as a stand-alone information package – avoid too little, or too much, information
• Pay attention to detail – check for typographical, grammatical and spelling errors before
  printing; don’t handwrite changes on the poster

Text - font

• Dark typeface on a light background is generally easier to read for most
• Titles and headings should be visible from 1-2 metres away; the main text from 0.5-1 metre away
• Use a slightly larger typeface for headings and a much larger typeface for titles
• Use italics, underlining, CAPITALISATION and bold for emphasis, otherwise regular typeface is best (the selective use of colour is also useful for emphasis)
• Use only one or two different fonts (sparingly use one font for emphasis)
• Avoid fancy fonts such as Franklin Gothic Medium and Segoe Script. Sans-serif fonts such as Arial and Verdana are generally more accessible and easier to read for most; the humanist sans-serif font Calibri is the default font on Microsoft Word and PowerPoint and is a good all-rounder

Colour and visual elements

• Avoid busy backgrounds
• Have one or two background colours, and use one or two colours in the main text and headings to accent the background colour. Some people have problems seeing red and green, so use sparingly. Supposedly, warm colours (red or yellow) convey power and happiness; cool colours (blue, beige and pastels) are soothing and relaxing. A colour wheel can help with selecting complementary or contrasting colours. Avoid fluorescent colours, and harsh colours and combinations; avoid boring colour schemes (not black and white!)
• Use visual elements to create interest and emphasise important areas – tables (to present demographic information), figures (simple thematic maps), clipart, images, photographs (check the copyright status of any images you intend to use; taking your own photographs can be a [fun] way to avoid problems with copyright)
• Any visual materials should be meaningful (and clearly related to the topic) and enticing. Images of people are particularly good for creating warmth and interest. Avoid stereotypical images
• Less can be more: “too many fonts and too many colours and designs will detract from the message that you are trying to convey” (Ellerbee, 2006: 167); the visual elements shouldn’t overpower the poster – avoid too many visuals, or poorly placed visuals, or visuals that are too small
• Make sure any tables and figures have clear captions

Text – sentences and paragraphs

• Avoid long blocks and lines of text – keep line length to 50-70 characters, including spaces and punctuation; keep any paragraphs short
• Use short sentences or phrases (and short words); bullet points, lists and short chunks of text (remove unnecessary text and condense information wherever possible)
• Avoid a feeling of clutter and busyness by having some blank space in the poster around headings, blocks of text and visuals

Layout

• The material should be placed in a easy to understand order, content should flow from top to bottom (and left to right) in each section of the poster; you use sequential numbers or arrows to direct the reader from one section to the next (colour is also useful here)
• Sections should be aligned
• Text should be left-justified only. The uneven gaps between words with centre and right- justified text make it is much harder to read
• Place the most important material at eye-level

References

Ellerbee, S. M. (2006). Posters with artistic flair. Nurse Educator, 31(4), 166-169.
MacIntosh-Murray, A. (2007). Poster presentations as a genre in knowledge communication.
Science Communication, 28(1), 347-376.

Russell, C. K., Gregory, D. M., & Gates, M. F. (1996). Aesthetics and Substance in Qualitative Research Posters. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 542-552.
Wilson, H. S., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1997). Presenting qualitative research up close: Visual literacy in poster presentations. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Completing a Qualitative Project: Detail and Dialogue (pp. 63-85). Sage.

What additional resources may help me complete this assessment?

Your supervisor is there to support and guide you throughout the process of conducting your research and producing your portfolio. They will give you feedback on your ethics application, and will sign off your ethics application so that it can be submitted for scrutiny. If needed, you will complete your health and safety risk assessment together. They will give you one round of feedback on a full draft of your dissertation report; they can also give you one round of feedback on the other elements of the portfolio. Your supervisor will also give you feedback throughout the process of conducting your research in supervision meetings and over email.

On Blackboard, you will find examples of portfolios that were awarded a distinction from previous years, and examples of posters and slides from oral presentations.

The writing tutors will run a dissertation writing workshop later in the year. They are also available for one-to-one support.
You may also find UWE library study skills resources useful:

• https://www.uwe.ac.uk/study/study-support/study-skills
• Critical thinking and writing - Reading and writing | UWE Bristol
• Writing - Reading and writing | UWE Bristol
• Writing feedback - Writing | UWE Bristol

What do I do if I am concerned about completing this assessment?

It is recommended that you review all of the relevant materials on Blackboard including this Assessment Brief. You can also speak to your supervisor, module leader and programme leader for advice and guidance.

UWE Bristol offer a range of Assessment Support Options that you can explore through this link, and both Academic Support and Wellbeing Support are available.

For further information, please see the Student study essentials.

How do I avoid an Assessment Offence on this module?

Use the support above if you feel unable to submit your own work for this module. Assessment offenses on dissertation/project modules include plagiarism of existing sources – presenting others’ academic work as your own – and various ethical, health and safety and GDPR violations, and potentially using an additional external supervisor without discussion

and agreement with your supervisor/module leader. You need to be careful to put things in your own words and acknowledge your sources.

Another type of assessment offense includes fabricating data. If you’re having difficulty with recruiting participants, and are running out of time, please speak to your supervisor. We recommend that you check your dissertation for plagiarism using the SafeAssign tool before submitting.

Ethical, health and safety and GDPR violations include conducting your research without (full and final) ethical approval from the College of Health, Science and Society Research Ethics Committee (CREC) or the Psychology Ethics Committee (PEC) and a deposited health and safety risk assessment (if you and your supervisor agree that there are significant risks associated with your research and depositing a risk assessment is necessary), making significant changes to your ethics protocol without discussing these with and having the approval of your supervisor, and submitting – and having approved - an ethics amendment approved if necessary, and not following the protocol laid out in your ethics application form, health and safety risk assessment form and GDPR privacy notice. You must not proceed with your research until you have (full and final) ethical approval from CREC or PEC, and ethics approval code, and if necessary a deposited health and safety risk assessment and a risk assessment reference number. You must keep a record of these approvals and codes/reference numbers, and include them in the appendices of your dissertation portfolio.

You must discuss any changes to your protocol with your supervisor - to give an example, your supervisor has scrutinised and signed off your application form, and is happy for you to submit it once you’ve made some minor changes. You make these minor changes alongside a significant change but you don’t alert your supervisor to this change and go ahead and submit your ethics application. Because your ethics application form has been signed off by your supervisor, the scrutineer will assume that the entire protocol has been discussed and agreed with your supervisor. In a scenario such as this, you must alert your supervisor to the significant change, discuss it with them, and they must sign off the revised ethics application form before you submit it. Please keep in mind the very important principle of “double scrutiny” of student research on British Psychological Society accredited modules/programmes - this means that both your supervisor and the ethics scrutineer must sign off your ethics protocol.

If you seek the support of an additional external supervisor without the agreement of your UWE supervisor/module leader, this could also constitute an assessment offence. It’s important that all students on the module have the opportunity to receive the same types and amounts of support - the involvement of an additional external supervisor without agreement, could mean that you have an unfair advantage because you have had access to significantly more, and different types of, support than other students on the module. The involvement of external supervisors must be something that is discussed and agreed with your UWE supervisor and the module leader.

Please refer to the UWE Academic Integrity web pages for further information.

Marks and Feedback

Your assessment will be marked according to the following marking criteria. You can use these to evaluate your own work before you submit.

Dissertation Portfolio Module Specific Marking Criteria

See also the generic M level criteria below.

1)Dissertation research report

Listed below, under headings that correspond to the sections of research report, is a series of points that staff will be considering in assessing your dissertation. These do not necessarily all carry equal weighting, but indicate the features expected of a good dissertation. Not all the features may apply to your particular project; some may be less appropriate or inappropriate to your particular type of study. Please remember, your supervisor is best placed to advise you about the specific content of your dissertation. In most circumstances, your supervisor will also be one of the markers for your dissertation. Therefore, if in doubt, discuss this with your supervisor. In general, however, the more of these criteria that your project meets, the more likely it is to receive a higher mark.

Introduction and rationale

• Does your dissertation have an appropriate title that conveys something about your topic and your approach, and perhaps the key message or ‘essence’ of your results/analysis?
• Is there an abstract that provides all the relevant information about the project (brief background and context/rationale, topic/research question, size and constitution of sample/participant group/dataset, design and methods, key results/themes etc., implications)?
• In your introduction/literature review, have you identified appropriate literature? Are there any obvious omissions? Have you included unnecessary or irrelevant information? Is your research appropriately contextualised in relation to relevant theory and the wider socio-cultural (and political, policy, legal) context? Is the reader left with a clear sense of what we know about a particular topic and how your research will extend and contribute to this knowledge?
• Is there a coherent narrative structure? Does the introduction contain a clear "story line" or argument?
• Do you critically analyse existing literature in the area? (NB critical analysis of the literature can mean something very different in quantitative and qualitative research – if you are doing a qualitative research project, you are not expected to present a quantitative-style methodological critique of existing literature)
• Do you specifically relate the literature discussed to the aims/research question/hypotheses?
• Is the rationale for doing this particular study clearly and explicitly argued?
• Is there a clear statement of the aims/research question/hypotheses?

Design

• Have you used an appropriate qualitative or quantitative (or mixed-methods) approach to your research question?
• Is your project of a sufficient size and scope for an MSc/MA study?
• Are your design choices justified appropriately and sufficiently, and with reference to relevant methodological literature?
• Is your research design inclusive and non-discriminatory?
• If you are conducting an experimental study, have you clearly explained the design of your study? E.g., whether you have used:
  o a between-participants design (comparing independent groups).
  o a within-participants design (comparing the same individuals across conditions).
  o a mixed design (between and within comparisons).
  o a correlational design (looking at associations between variables).
• If you are conducting a qualitative study:
  oIs the design epistemologically, ontologically, theoretically and methodologically congruent?
  oDo the different elements of the design (research question, method of data generation, participant group/dataset, method of data analysis) fit together well and demonstrate “methodological integrity” (Levitt et al., 2017) or methodological congruence?

Method/ology

• Is the method/ology clearly presented with sufficient (and no unnecessary) detail?
• Is the method/ology appropriate to the stated aims/research question?
• Is the sampling strategy/constitution of the participant group/dataset clearly explained and justified? Is the sample/participant group/dataset and sample/participant group/dataset size appropriate (if the desired sample/participant group/dataset was not achieved, is this clearly explained and justified, and an appropriate reflection on the consequent limitations of the research provided)? Have you generated and reported appropriate demographic data? Are the recruitment and access strategies clearly outlined and justified?
• If applicable, is the selection/construction of the apparatus and or materials appropriate?
• Is the procedure clearly explained (and, for a quantitative study, replicable) from the information given?
• Have you described and justified the analysis you used?
• Some research will require pilot studies such as piloting a questionnaire, scale, survey, story stem or interview guide or selecting appropriate stimuli, exposure times or numbers of trials. Have you discussed the pilot in the method/ology section?
• Have ethics been appropriately attended to? If the research raises any particular ethical considerations, have these been highlighted and discussed?
• Is your research non-discriminatory and underpinned by a “respect for difference”
  (BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct, 2009)?
• Is the structure and organisation of the method/ology appropriate? Avoiding repetition and redundancy across sections while also providing all the necessary information? In a qualitative report, does the methodology begin with a discussion of the theoretical foundations of the research, and is a rationale provided for the design choices/methods used?
  Results and Discussion
• Do you give a succinct description and interpretation of the salient features of the data or other results?
• Do you present appropriate figures/tables? Are these clearly presented and labelled?
• Is the statistical analysis (if any) appropriate? Is the statistical analysis sufficient? Are statistics formatted in APA style and interpreted correctly?
• Is the qualitative analysis coherent and compelling?
• Have the data been systematically and thoroughly analysed? (avoiding using data generation questions as themes/categories etc. and/or simply summarising the responses to each question)
• Does the analysis address the research question?
• Are there an appropriate number of themes/categories etc. (avoiding too many or too few themes/categories etc.)? Is each theme/category etc. discussed in sufficient depth and detail?
• Are your themes/categories etc. distinctive (avoiding overlap)?
• Do you provide a clear sense of the relationship between your themes/categories etc. and how they together tell a coherent story about the data?
• Do you understand the difference between topic summaries and themes – this is particularly crucial for reflexive thematic analysis?
• Are your themes/categories etc. internally coherent and consistent?
• Is there a good fit between your analytic claims and illustrative data extracts?
• Does the analysis capture all of the relevant features of data extracts presented?
• Is there a good balance between the analytic narrative and the data extracts (at least 50% analytic narrative)?
• If a pattern-based analysis, are the patterns convincingly demonstrated?
• Does the analytic narrative consist of analysis/interpretation (rather than paraphrasing, arguing with the data etc.)?
• Is there a good fit between the data analysis and the epistemological/ontological/theoretical and methodological frameworks informing the research (i.e., does the analysis do what it set out to do?)?
• Overall, at a minimum, does the analysis provide a competent descriptive mapping of relevant features of the data (with some attempts at interpretation of overall findings)? At a higher level, does the analysis provide a conceptually/theoretically-informed interpretation or critical interrogation of the data?
• Is the discussion thorough – does it include all the main areas specified below (e.g., drawing overall conclusions, contextualisation of the research in relation to existing literature, implications, study evaluation/reflection, suggestions for future research)?
• Is the discussion constructively critical?
• Do you show understanding of the results, their implications and practical applications?
• Do you relate the results effectively to previous work/theories?
• Do you identify appropriate issues for future investigation (arising from your research)?
• Do you attempt theoretical and conceptual analysis or discussion of results?
• Have you identified any limitations of your research? (Do you evaluate your research ‘on its own terms’ – i.e., you avoid criticising qualitative research for lacking the features of good quantitative research?)
• Have you considered the application and implications of your research?
• Have you included any reflection on your use of methods?
• Does the report end with a conclusion that concisely summarises the key messages (e.g., analytic conclusions/results, contributions, potential implications) of the research?

Appendices

• Is the dissertation supported by appropriate appendices?
  oAt a minimum the appendices should include evidence of ethical approval (the email from the scrutineer), your consent form, participant information sheet and other research materials (e.g. calls for participants, questionnaires/scales/interview guide, demographic questions). You should then discuss with your supervisor what other information to include. This might include a paper trail from your analysis (e.g. from a qualitative project, examples of coding, thematic maps, theme definitions, reflexive diary entries; from a quantitative project, examples of your analysis output), and supervisory meeting records signed by your supervisor
• Is there a contents page for the appendices?
• Is each appendix appropriately labelled?
• Is each appendix referenced in the main text?
• Is the material presented genuinely supplementary? The appendices are not used to expand the word count.

Overall impression

• Presentation:
• Appearance - is the project neat and professionally presented?
• Spelling and grammar - are they accurate?
• Is the reference listing complete, accurate and consistently formatted in a version of Harvard style (e.g., UWE Harvard, APA Harvard, BPS Harvard)?
• Is the abstract succinct and precise?
• Style of writing - does it show fluency, clarity, liveliness, sophistication? Is the style appropriate?
• Structure – is the report presented in a logical, meaningful order?
• Do you use language and concepts (and a writing-style) appropriate to your research paradigm?
• Does your work show originality, creativity, flair?
• How much effort has gone into the study?
• How much assistance had to be given by your supervisor?

OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PORTFOLIO

2)Explanation and justification of choice of academic journal/presentation reflection A strong journal justification will evidence:

• An appropriate choice of journal (good fit between the current aims and scope of the journal and the topic and approach of your research).
• A thoughtful and insightful discussion that identifies compelling reasons for the journal selection.
• Your development as a reflective researcher-practitioner. A strong presentation reflection will evidence:
• A thoughtful and insightful reflection on what has been learnt from the experience of both preparing and delivering presentations of your research.
• A balanced appraisal of what went well and what could be improved in the future.
• Your development as a reflective researcher-practitioner.

3)A copy of a poster or slides from an oral presentation of the final research results/outcomes at an appropriate academic conference

• A strong poster presentation or strong oral presentation slides will clearly convey the key features and final results/outcomes of your research and evidence a good understanding of the key principles of effective slide/poster design (see the guidance in this document and on Blackboard) including around accessibility.
• The slides/poster are of a professional standard of presentation, free of typos, inconsistencies and errors.

4)A lay summary/LinkedIn style blog post of the final results/outcome of the research

A strong lay summary/blog post will evidence:

• A clear and accessible account of the research, pitched at the appropriate level for the intended audience.
• An accessible, non-technical, jargon-free writing style and use of language.
• A concise summary of the key messages of the research for the relevant audience.
• Your development as a reflective researcher-practitioner.

Generic M-Level Marking Scale Marking Criteria

These module specific criteria are in addition to the generic M level criteria: