Leeds Beckett University dissertation

Systematic Review Marking Form

Name or ID of student:

Title of Dissertation:

Weighting

Mark

Background Chapters

Abstract

What it a concise summary of what was done and what was found

Introduction

Is the relevance to health promotion made explicit?

Is there a sound rational for research

Is the problem/issue to be researched clearly conceptualised?

Review question and objectives

Are these stated clearly forming boundaries to the scope of the review?

Use of literature

Are key concepts defined appropriately?

Is the literature used relevant and of sufficient breadth and depth?

Is a comprehensive overview of relevant literature provided?

Is an effective synthesis achieved?

Justification of methodology and method

Is there adequate justification of the methodology and design?

Epistemological debates about the nature or evidence should be explicit and applied to the context of the review.

Is the process of the review very clearly articulated and evidenced?

Stages in the process needed to be described, justified

Development of the review question and inclusion/ exclusion criteria justified

– Development and implementation of searching strategy

– Development of screening and data extraction tools

– Statement of criteria for quality assessment and related tools.

– Statement of how findings will be synthesised

– Discussion of conceptual frameworks of transferability

Results

Are results concise?

Is there a strong analytical framework eg comparing different types of interventions or participants?

Does each step in the process above have findings?

Are the results of the quality assessment reported and incorporated into the findings?

Is there synthesis of the whole body of evidence?

Discussion

Does discussion contain critical review of the process itself ?(outlining strengths and weakness)

Does the discussion contain critical review of the included studies w.r.t quality/ risk of bias and generalisability/applicability? Is there discussion of the findings in relation to existing literature?

Are the implications of the findings for PH/HP Policy/practice/individuals/research addressed?

Conclusions

Are the conclusions explicitly derived from the findings?

Are the conclusions comprehensive?

Is there any attempt to go beyond the immediately obvious in drawing conclusions?

Recommendations

Do the recommendations derive directly from the data and discussion?

Are the recommendations appropriate ? (moving from obvious to complex)

Is the practical context considered in relation to implementation of recommendations?

Whole thesis Presentation and structure

Accurate spelling and grammar?

Accurate and comprehensive referencing?

Is there a clear and balanced structure?

Is the dissertation easy to ‘navigate’

Final mark

Contact Hours

Up to four one-hour seminar sessions will be timetabled at the beginning of the module. The details of these will be confirmed on My Beckett.

Key Resources to Support Learning

Journal articles:

Quantitative Dissertations

Marshall, G and Jonker, L. (2010) An introduction to descriptive statistics: A review and practical guide

Radiography Volume 16, Issue 4, November 2010, Pages e1–e7 available http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817410000027

An article that discusses different types of data, statistical terminology and a useful checklist for researchers.

Marshall, G and Jonker, L. (2011) An Introduction to inferential statistics: a review and practical guide Radiography Volume 17, Issue 1, February 2011, Pages e1–e6 available http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817409001436

An article that follows on from the above explaining p values and confidence intervals. It introduces the reader to common statistical tests, and explains the use of parametric and non-parametric statistics. Again there is a checklist of points to consider before and after applying statistical tests to a data set.

Qualitative Dissertations

Bowen, A. (2010) From Qualitative Dissertation to Quality Articles: Seven Lessons Learned Qualitative Report, v15 n4 p864-879 Jul 2010 available at http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ896175

An article that details how to turn a qualitative dissertation into a journal article for publication.

Endacott, R. (2005) Clinical research 4: qualitative data collection and analysis in Intensive and Critical Care Nursing Volume 21, Issue 2, April 2005, Pages 123–127 available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964339704001168

An article that is part of a research series aimed at developing research skills, this one gives an overview of qualitative approaches.

Burnard, P(2003) Writing a Qualitative Research Report Nurse Education Today Volume 24, Issue 3, April

2004, Pages 174–179 Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260691703001679

Article offering advice about how to write up research findings for publication

For those undertaking systematic reviews

Cochrane Collaboration http://uk.cochrane.org/ – Access the resources tab, and there are a range of supporting documents that will help you in developing a review, that are open access.
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/ – Provides free electronic handbooks on how to do systematic reviews (explore under the resources tab).
NHS CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) – http://www.casp-uk.net/ – Accessible resource for checklists associated with critical appraisal within the systematic review process.

Useful web-links

Bandolier: evidenced based thinking about healthcare – http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/ – an independent journal about evidence-based healthcare
The Knowledge Network previously NHS Scotland eLibrary -http://www.knowledge.scot.nhs.uk/home.aspx – an online library with a range of publications
Methodspace – http://www.methodspace.com/ – Research methods’ community resources and blog produced by Sage Publishing
Web Centre for Social Research Methods – http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/ – This website is for people involved in applied social research and evaluation
How to conduct a literature search –an online tutorial – http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nursing/sonet/rlos/studyskills/lit_search/index.html
Online Tutorials from the University of Reading about a range of research related activities -Here you will find a range of on-line tutorials about starting doing research projects.

https://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/studyadvice/sta-videotutorials.aspx

University of Manchester Research Methods support – http://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/ – example case studies in a range of topic and methodological areas, access these via the resources tab

E-Books

Biggam, J 2015, Succeeding With Your Master’s Dissertation: A Step-By-Step Handbook, Maidenhead, Berkshire, England : Open University Press, 2015.

http://catalogue.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/0/0/57/5/3? searchdata1=486060{CKEY}&searchfield1=GENERAL^SUBJECT^GENERAL^^&user_id=WEBSERVER [Electronic Resource]

Burnett, J 2009, Doing Your Social Science Dissertation. Los Angeles, [Calif.] ; London : SAGE, 2009., http://catalogue.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/0/0/57/5/3? searchdata1=494718{CKEY}&searchfield1=GENERAL^SUBJECT^GENERAL^^&user_id=WEBSERVER [Electronic Resource]

Carey, M 2009, The Social Work Dissertation. Using Small-Scale Qualitative Methodology, Maidenhead : McGraw-Hill Open University Press, 2009.

http://catalogue.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/0/0/57/5/3? searchdata1=486087{CKEY}&searchfield1=GENERAL^SUBJECT^GENERAL^^&user_id=WEBSERVER [Electronic Resource]

Swetnam, D 2004, Writing Your Dissertation. How To Plan, Prepare And Present Successful Work. Oxford : How To Books, 2004.

http://catalogue.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/0/0/57/5/3? searchdata1=507013{CKEY}&searchfield1=GENERAL^SUBJECT^GENERAL^^&user_id=WEBSERVER Quite simple / easy read.

[Electronic Resource]

All disabled students requiring additional support or alternative arrangements must declare and provide evidence of their disability to the Disability Advice Team as early as possible: https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/student-information/disability-advice/.

Disability Advice and Support

Students with disabilities requiring additional support or alternative arrangements must declare and provide evidence of their disability to the Disability Advice Team as early as possible. Please see here for details: https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/student-information/disability-advice/.

Assessment

Assessment Summary

Assessment Method:	Dissertation	Re-assessment Method:	Dissertation
Word Count	11,000 words or equivalent	Word Count	11,000 words or equivalent
Assessment Date and Time:	F/T and PT 24months 2^nd September, 2024 at 1pm GMT P/T 18 months 28^th January, 2025 at 1pm GMT	Re-assessment Date and Time:	TBC individually by module leader
Feedback Method:	In writing via student email account	Feedback Method:	In writing via student email account
Feedback Date:	4 Weeks after submission	Feedback Date:	TBC individually by module leader
Learning Outcomes Assessed:	All

Particular Instructions to Students

You are responsible for ensuring that your work has been submitted correctly and that you have a receipt of submission. You must also ensure that you keep a copy of your work. In the event of your submitted work being lost, you will be required to produce a copy of the work. If you are unable to do so, the work will not be marked.

This module requires you to submit your work online.

You MUST submit your work through MyBeckett using the link set up by the tutor. Receipt of your work will be recorded.

Your “Turnitin assignments” in MyBeckett can be set up so that you can check your assignment yourself as you submit it. This checking is done by creating a “Similarity Report”. If this report shows that there are some problems with your work, such as un-cited quotations, you should be able to make corrections and re-submit the work again before the due date. More information about Turnitin is available online here: http://libguides.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/mybeckett/turnitin

Please note: Tutors will follow up any suspected breach of academic integrity found after the submission date as per University policy. Late penalties will apply as per University Regulations.

Word count policy

All work must state the word count on the cover sheet.

For written assessments the course team employ a policy where you are permitted to go up to 10% over the word count, but a percentage of mark will be taken off from the allocated mark if this upper limit is exceeded. This will be the absolute percentage of the actual given mark – 5% deduction of total possible marks for every 10% that the student goes over the maximum word limits. E.g. If the word limit is 2000, then an excess of 2200 will incur a 5% deduction; 2400 will incur 10% deduction and so on. If the word limit is 5000, then an excess of 5500 will incur a 5% deduction and 6000 will incur 10% deduction and so on.

Work that is below the word limit will not be penalised. However, students should bear in mind that the word allocation reflects what the tutor regards as necessary to demonstrate the achievement of all the assessment criteria. If the word count is below the necessary word limits, this may reflect on the quality of the work and, hence, the mark.

Your Dissertation Supervisor

A supervisor is allocated once the proposal is submitted. Students sometimes ask if they can select their own supervisor, but because of the number of students being supervised at any one time it is not practicable to offer this option. If you have any significant concerns about the supervisor you have been allocated, then those concerns should be brought to the attention of the Dissertation Coordinator or Course Leader. The supervision process will be substantially the same no matter who carries it out, although there will be some variations in style.

Supervision Guidelines

The purpose of supervision is to provide general support and guidance throughout the period of producing the dissertation. The supervisor’s role is that of a facilitator of the process. Your tutor can be expected to stimulate your thinking about the various aspects of your work and provide intellectual challenge. The tutor will also provide advice about content and time scale and any specific requirements of your particular dissertation. The ultimate responsibility for the research, writing up, proof reading and production of the final document lies with the student.

A maximum of ten hours of Supervisor’s time for tutorials is allocated to each student and this is matched by about the same time for reading drafts of work.

In general, it is expected that you will initiate tutorials when needed. You should normally arrange tutorials at least a week in advance. Some students plan a programme of supervision tutorials to ensure that they complete all stages of the dissertation on schedule. If you are unable to keep a tutorial appointment please remember to let your tutor know in good time. If you fail to do so you will lose time from the total tutorial time available.

In planning your work, it is important to plan to use tutorial support wisely. Especially during July and August when staff often take holidays, you need to plan your tutorial time ahead with your supervisor. Some staff are also not available when they are teaching away from the University but they will let you know when these are. If in doubt ask your supervisor if there are any times when they are not available for a prolonged period of time.

While initial tutorials with your supervisor will involve general discussion, most tutorials should focus on feedback and discussion on work appropriate to the stage of the dissertation process. Drafts of work should be given to the tutor, preferably typewritten, at least 3 working days before an agreed tutorial. Longer time should be given if there is a substantial amount to read, or if the supervisor has other commitments at that time.

Notes should be maintained by the student of each tutorial and a copy kept by the student. These will document progress and actions before the next tutorial.

Supervision can continue up to two weeks before the submission date. The priority during the final stages before submission is to support you in handing the work in on time. The final editing and preparation of the final document needs sufficient time and you should not be seeking to make major changes to the text in the final two weeks.

Responsibilities of Tutors and Students Responsibilities of Tutors

To comply with the Faculty Research Ethics procedures and principles.
To discuss a time schedule for completion of the study and provide support and guidance to enable you to meet deadlines.
To discuss each stage of the dissertation process and provide relevant feedback and guidance in developing the work.

To advise students to seek additional specialist support, should this be needed.
To warn of the consequences of adopting over ambitious or other inappropriate approaches to the dissertation.
To monitor progress and view evidence of the data collection and analytical processes.
To alert students when progress is such that submission for a planned date looks difficult and to agree appropriate responses.
To ensure that any concerns are communicated clearly and recorded in writing via student University email accounts.
To read drafts of the dissertation material once and give written and/or verbal feedback.
It is not the responsibility of the tutor to proof-read, but they will indicate general problems with syntax, spelling and punctuation.
It is not the responsibility of the tutor to read the final draft if earlier drafts have been seen. You can expect that if you submit work in time a supervisor will read a draft of each section once.

Responsibilities of Students

To communicate using your university email accounts. Emails sent from other addresses may not reach the supervisor and may not be answered. If you do not access your university email then you will also miss important information form the co-ordinators who send regular emails to keep all students on track.

To keep their tutor informed of progress.
To initiate tutorials.
To inform their tutor as soon as possible if a tutorial appointment cannot be kept.

To discuss with their supervisor any additional support that may be required such as language or statistical support.
To provide legible drafts of material for tutor’s comments.
To provide drafts of material to be discussed in tutorials in advance of meetings. Drafts of material should normally be provided three working days in advance of tutorials.
To contact the supervisor before making any major decisions e.g. booking international flights to travel to undertake data collection or to return home after writing up or making changes to the planned and agreed study.
To comply with the Faculty Research Ethics procedures and principles.
To ensure that enrolment papers are in order (N.B. Students who are not enrolled cannot receive supervision and cannot be considered at Exam Boards).
To ensure that the work is not plagiarised, that data is not falsified and that no collusion has taken place.

Problems and solutions

While it is hoped that the dissertation programme is a smooth one, most research processes throw up problems that need to be addressed and resolved. Even the best planning can’t prevent unexpected problems.

Problems should be seen as challenges that you deal with and reflect on your management of them. Even if things go badly wrong, this doesn’t mean that you cannot progress on your Dissertation. The important thing will be to reflect critically on the problems. Students in the past have not had insurmountable difficulties. You will see from their dissertations that they do comment on some difficulties. A few examples of things that can happen are:

You do not receive ethical approval when you want it. Generally, students on taught programmes should be undertaking category risk 2 projects which can be reviewed by the LREC within a 2-3 day period. The quality of the documentation provided will dictate how quickly you can receive approval for a risk 2 project. If you are undertaking a category risk 3 project then this will be viewed by the LREC but may take slightly longer. If you are waiting for approval you can work intensively on materials of the dissertation which are not directly related to the empirical study, e.g. introduction, literature review, methods;
You get a very low return of questionnaires in a postal survey. In most cases you will have to accept that your findings will have reduced generalisability. You can reflect on reasons for low return and identify future strategies for getting higher returns. There are some groups where it is known to be difficult to get good response rates and this should have been taken into account at the stage of planning data collection. It might be possible to add in, at a late stage, a complementary element of data collection such as a small number of focus groups.
You are undertaking your dissertation in your normal work setting. You are getting advice that is in conflict with the work you have planned and you are not sure how to respond. This needs to be discussed with your supervisor. If the project is at an early stage any difficulties can usually be resolved. In some cases, joint supervision of projects may be an appropriate strategy.
Someone steals your bags or your car containing your data, material, drafts etc., or your computer crashes. It is vital to keep back-up copies of all your work in a separate place. You can if necessary, write materials again but if you lose your research data you are in a very difficult position. The cloud drive is a relatively secure space to store data.
In a study built around interviews designed to generate qualitative data you are unable to get enough participants or the interviews are seriously curtailed because of situational constraints. If possible, you should contact your supervisor and discuss the problem. If you are seriously short of data to analyse you may be able to add in an alternative source of data collection into the study at short notice e.g. a small number of focus groups.

Instructions to Students

Please read carefully the assessment and grade/marking descriptors overleaf:

International students who reside outside the UK

The majority of international students are expected to complete their dissertation in the UK. However, in exceptional situations students may wish to request that they collect their data or complete their dissertation in their home country. Such a request MUST be agreed with the Dissertation Coordinator before a decision is taken to return home for the data collection.

In such cases tutorial support is provided, as relevant, e.g. by e-mail, telephone and, very occasionally, in home countries when members of staff are visiting. Where the normal pattern cannot be followed the individual Dissertation Supervisor will agree the appropriate format for support.

The scope of your research project should be such that data collection can be completed in about 4 weeks. The project should also be one where you can complete the data collection yourself with any necessary support required where there are interpreting needs. It is not expected that projects that are carried out should require significant financial costs.

It is expected that you will have the skills to complete data collection when you go home. Wherever possible you should keep your tutor informed of progress.

If it happens that data collection cannot take place as planned you should contact the tutor to agree alternatives. If this is not possible, we would expect you to make appropriate decisions about changing your research.

It should be emphasised that the MSc Dissertation research is a learning exercise in which you reflect on the process as it occurs. Even if things don’t turn out as planned critical reflection on events can still be completed. It is not in your interests to let your study take longer than the usual time period.

You should notify your supervisor of progress and intended date of return.

Enrolment for the MSc and Dissertation module

Important Information about enrolment particularly for part time students

If you intend working on your Dissertation in any one year you must be enrolled.

As a part time student you have a twelve month enrolment period to complete your dissertation from January until January / February. You must be actively engaged during this time period of enrolment. Not doing any work on the module will not change the advertised submission date and you will find it difficult to complete your dissertation on time.

Please be aware that according to University Regulations, only enrolled students are entitled to receive tutorial assistance and/or be considered at an Exam Board.

Our year runs from September to September, and you will need to re-enrol with the University in the September of the year before you start your work. This is important for part timers and you will need to reenrol in September 2024.

The Course Administrator will organise your enrolment for that academic year.

If you are not enrolled at the time of the Examinations Board at which your work is to be considered then you will not receive the award.

Ethical Approval

All research involving human participants or subjects is subject to the University’s Research Ethics Procedure. This requires completion of an appropriate documentation. Full guidance and details of the procedures were covered in a taught session and this material is also linked on the associated VLE.

It may also be necessary to seek formal ethical approval outside the University. In the UK for example, NHS Approval may be needed to meet the requirements of NHS Research Governance or occasionally an international ethics committee may give ethical approval. This can be time consuming and you should allow at least 2/3 months for this. There is a university protocol which must be followed if a student is undertaking research within an NHS either in recruitment, data access or collection.

All researchers should conform to any Professional Code of Ethics and the provisions of the Data Protection

Act. To undertake Research with children or vulnerable groups in the UK you will need Criminal Records Bureau clearance via the Disclosure and Barring Service.

YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO COLLECT ANY DATA INCLUDING PILOT DATA UNTIL YOU HAVE BEEN FORMALLY SIGNED OFF BY YOUR SUPERVISOR AND THE DEPARTMENTAL LOCAL RESEARCH ETHICS CO-ORDINATOR (LREC). If you do this collect data without permission then you are subject to disciplinary action under the research ethics procedures.

Academic Integrity and Research Ethics

All dissertations/research projects (including literature reviews using information in the public domain) require research ethics approval and you must submit your ethical approval notification with your assignment for the assessment to be marked.

The Research Ethics Policy, the Research Ethics Procedures and the research ethics online application system can be found here: https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/student-information/academic-skills-and advice/research-ethics/

You must follow the guidance provided on your module regarding obtaining ethical approval and it is your responsibility to ensure you have received ethical approval evidence prior to any data collection.

Our Academic Integrity Regulations also apply to academic integrity breaches and unfair practices related to research ethics and dissertations including, but not limited to, the following:

Non-compliance with the University’s Research Ethics Policy and Research Ethics Procedures;
Failure to gain ethical approval for the submitted work;
Failure to gain ethical approval before data collection (i.e., retrospective approval cannot be requested);
Changing the project’s details after ethical approval has been given, without seeking further approval;  Falsifying data;
Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion, submitting another person’s work as your assignment and contract cheating.

The consequences of Academic Integrity Regulations breaches for research ethics are detailed in the Academic Regulations, section 10, Academic Integrity with more information here:

https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/student-information/academic-skills-and-advice/academic-integrity/

NHS research projects and IRAS

For postgraduate projects requiring NHS REC approval, the School has a protocol as part of the Research Ethics Procedures that must be followed for IRAS applications. You can obtain the protocol from your research supervisor.

Maximum number of research ethics resubmissions

If your research supervisor or Local Research Ethics Co-ordinator is unable to approve your research ethics application (risk category 2 or 3), you will be provided with feedback and be asked to resubmit the application. Please note that an application can only be resubmitted twice. If it is not approved on the second resubmission, the dissertation must be changed to a risk category 1 project, such as a systematic review, and a new application for ethical approval must be submitted.

NHS approval

Research participants are staff and/or patients within the NHS are required to receive approval through

NHS research and ethics committee. Some projects may be exempt from full scrutiny such as service evaluations but we require a letter stating that the project is exempt from the chair of the relevant ethics committee.

Leeds Beckett Ethics Committee

Generally on any taught programme students are encouraged to undertake low risk projects risk category 1 or 2. Risk 3 projects i.e. children or vulnerable participants and sensitive topic areas are subject to a higher level of scrutiny by the LREC and so this may take longer. If you are undertaking a risk category 3 project you may be expected to attend a LREC meeting with your supervisor in attendance.

The online processes for application for ethical approval will be used in this academic year.

Guidance about how to apply online can be found at this link. https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/studenthub/documents/Research_Ethics_Online_Applicant_Guidance.pdf

You should in the first instance send your application to your supervisor who will in due course send the application to the LREC for consideration

International Research

In the rare instances where students are permitted by the module co-ordinators to undertake research outside the UK comparable ethical approval must be obtained by an accredited Ethics committee in that appropriate country or district. Documentation must be provided to supervisor and group ethics coordinator, prior to any research taking place.

The Structure of the Completed Dissertation

Dissertations completed by past students are available for you to view on My Beckett. We show you good examples of dissertation of all types. You should be careful that you don’t plagiarise these dissertations or any other sources of information.

There are a many different types of outputs that can be submitted for this module dependent on what you are trying to achieve in your research. Some possibilities include:

A traditional research report in chapters

A journal article

A systematic review report

An evidence briefing for commissioners and practitioners, similar to those of NICE.

Development and evaluation of a tool for screening or assessment

Analysis of policy development and implementation

An audit

An evaluation report for practitioners

An action research report

A comprehensive research proposal

It should be noted that any work undertaken by students for the MSc dissertation is the intellectual property of Leeds Beckett not the student or any external agency involved in the research. Leeds Beckett as an organisation and/or the supervisor should be acknowledged.

The following table outlines what should be achieved within the output/s in order to meet the requirements of a Masters level piece of research and the learning outcomes of the module.

Box 1

Requirements and M level capacities evident in outputs

11 000 words or equivalence

Evidences meeting the learning outcomes of the module

Research draws on epistemological and conceptual frameworks

Links to public health and/or health promotion theoretical foundations

Critical engagement with supporting literature

Critical engagement with and evidence of research processes

Evidence of the research ethics principles and processes

Guidance about outputs types

Traditional dissertations

In the next sections we have outlined a structure of a traditional 11 000 word dissertation, and a structure for an 11 000 word systematic review which you may find helpful. These may be appropriate frameworks for your output.

Structure and Organisation of Empirical dissertations

Introduction chapter – about 1000 words

The first chapter will be your introduction. The aim of the introduction is to introduce the reader to the general area and to provide the scope and a brief rationale for the study. It should clearly state your aims and objectives or your research questions or hypotheses, if appropriate. In other words, it should give the reader a clear idea of what you intended to do. It should also give the reader a clear indication of how you have organised the material into the dissertation.

Literature review chapter – about 2000 words

This chapter organises the literature linked to your particular research aims and questions. Logically it should have a bearing on the rationale for your study. Be wary of including a great deal of purely descriptive material. For example, if you are looking at the role of physical activity in controlling type 2 diabetes, how much descriptive material about diabetes is it necessary to include? If you are writing about another country include only those details which have a bearing on your research questions. The chapter should be logically structured, with good sub-headings, provide depth of subject and the theoretical basis for the research, if appropriate.

It might be appropriate to include some essential descriptive material in an appendix such as to clarify a point or to refer the reader to a particular issue. In general, you don’t want to “waste” too many words on descriptive or background material, so ask yourself how much of this is necessary. If in doubt, ask the advice of your supervisor.

It is important to focus your review of literature specifically toward your research objectives or questions.

A useful technique is to funnel the review starting with the more general then being more specific.

http://skillsforlearning.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/local/academic_communication/literature_reviews/index.shtml

Methodology chapter – about 2500 words

This chapter outlines the study epistemological foundations of the research methodology design (research population, sampling strategy, sample size and justification, data collection methods). It will also describe in what way issues of rigour were addressed, any ethical considerations and what action was taken. You need to demonstrate the rigour of your methods.

The reader should be able to see exactly what you did at each stage of the research and if necessary, to replicate the study from your description. Any weaknesses in the research should be pointed out. Remember that this is a learning exercise, and the examiner will want to see that you have learnt from the experience, even if the research didn’t work out as you would have expected or something “went wrong”.

Results/Findings chapter – about 2500 words

This chapter contains a presentation of your results – it tells the reader what you found. Remember that at this point you may be quite familiar with your research, whereas the reader will be coming to it for the first time. Explain and describe everything clearly. Make sure that you label all tables and figures. In a qualitative study make sure that any quotations you use are linked to the text. Generally this chapter does not require detailed discussion of results in relation to the literature on the subject.

Discussion chapter – about 2000 words

The next chapter is usually a discussion chapter. This chapter will “knit together” all that has gone before.

It will relate the findings critically to the literature from the opening chapters and it will say something about the findings. In other words, it moves beyond the presentation of findings in the results chapter towards a more analytical, critical commentary. You will comment on the utility of any theoretical models and decide on the extent to which your research questions have been answered. Mostly, you should not introduce new ideas or theories in this chapter. However, occasionally qualitative findings, being inductive, warrant development, exploration or explanation through a theoretical framework, which has not been discussed in the Literature review chapter. You should aim to compare your findings with other work, pose possible explanations for the findings, locate your work within policy, practice and client perspectives and begin to outline the ‘so what’ and ‘what does all the mean?’ and ‘what are the implications’ of the research findings. Read others discussion chapters and sections and mirror what they do. We often find that students do not leave enough time for to write this chapter. It is a key discriminator for obtaining an excellent mark.

It is permitted to write a combined findings and discussion chapter where appropriate (i.e. for qualitative work) although this should be avoided for quantitative work.

Conclusions and recommendations chapter – about 1000 words

This final chapter should not contain new material, but should pick out the key findings and is a retrospective comment on the research. You should certainly be able to make recommendations, and we encourage this. What should happen now? How would someone use your research? Be careful that your recommendations are based on the research findings and not on what you might think anyway or merely a wish list! In other words, they need to be grounded in your research.

Reference list

The reference list should follow in Harvard referencing style.

http://skillsforlearning.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/local/academic_communication/harvard_referencing/ index.shtml

Appendices

Appendices should include all data collection instruments, any letters sent, any clarifying material, examples of documents referred to in the text (for example, if you are investigating the implementation of smoking in the work place, you might include the policy of those companies/institutions you investigated).

Inclusion of examples of qualitative material (e.g. an example of a transcript) should be discussed with your supervisor.

You will not necessarily write the final dissertation in this order. Your preliminary chapters should be well planned and sketched out before starting fieldwork, but you may need to add or amend these later. It makes sense to write the methods chapter whilst the process is still fresh in your mind. The discussion chapter can be the hardest chapter to write, so allow plenty of time for this one. A major task of writing the dissertation is deciding on what material goes where and there may not be one right answer to how you organise the dissertation – several alternatives might be equally logical. You need to be prepared to move material around until you are satisfied, and you must expect that there will be a need to produce several drafts. Remember too that you could carry on refining a dissertation forever; the important thing is to get to a stage where both you and your supervisor are happy with the finished product – and submit!

Structure and organisation of a Systematic Review

Introduction

The literature overview

The literature overview should demonstrate in-depth reading and critical interpretation of the literature related to the subject area for the review. An exploration of the national/international policy context would be expected if relevant. The chapter should be logically structured, with good sub-headings, provide depth of subject and the theoretical basis for the research. Finally the overview should be used to provide the justification for the review. As part of the justification the section would be expected to cover and discuss previously published systematic and ‘other’ reviews

Methodology

The purpose of the methodology chapter is to establish and justify the methodology of the review in hand. The methodology chapter should start with a critical discussion of systematic literature reviews in relation to public health and/or health promotion. This may include some history and the ‘evolution’ of reviews, and the current thinking, drawing on strong epistemological consideration of the nature evidence. It would be expected to explore the debates around study design (the RCT debate) and quantitative versus qualitative assessment in systematic reviews.

The methods section should describe the formulation of research questions; inclusion and exclusion criteria, the search strategy (including search terms), the screening and selection of studies, data extraction process, quality assessment in the analysis, and the synthesis of the findings. It must be clear what sources have been searched, how the search terms were combined, and finally on what basis the judgement about generalisability (transferability) and effectiveness was made. It should draw on key documents, such as the CRD guidance on systematic reviews.

Findings

The results chapter should outline the results of the literature search (for example study design and country of origin), and provide some information about the characteristics of the studies and interventions included (for example study design; sample size; recruitment method, or implementation design; duration; participants / facilitators; feasibility of implementation).

The analysis of the studies would be based on the aims of the review, but also provide such information that would be required to be able to make a judgement about effectiveness. This information should be described and provided in table format.

Finally the synthesis should bring together the researcher’s assessment and interpretation of effect, including issues about generalisability, quality of the studies, and applicability of the interventions.

Discussion

The discussion should start with a critical discussion of the review itself. It should follow on with a critical discussion of the findings in relation to the literature. The author should also explore the relevance of the findings to public health and/or health promotion practice and identify gaps in the evidence.

Reference list

The reference list should follow in Harvard referencing style.

Appendices

Appendices should include evidence of the process of research in this case of searching, search histories, screening, data extraction forms and finally validity assessment.

Writing up a journal article as an output

If you are planning to write a draft journal article we suggest that you follow the structure and style of ONE of the following journals which tend to match the Masters level requirements more closely than some other shorter publications.

Critical Public Health

Health Promotion International

Social Science and Medicine

Qualitative Health Research

Remember most journals are about 5-7000 words and you will need to be able to write very concisely in this type of output. In addition, you will need to evidence material that journal articles don’t require. You may need to provide additional commentary on and evidence of the epistemological frameworks, PH/HP theoretical foundation, ethical approval process, data collection processes, reflections and reflexivity and recommendations in associated appendices.

You should not submit an article for publication until the examination processes are complete and you have the express permission of your supervisor.

Other outputs

You may need to seek guidance from your supervisor and/or the dissertation co-ordinators if you are writing more unusual outputs that do not fit into the ‘traditional’ structures for research but should ensure that you address the learning outcomes of the module and the points in Box 1 on page 12. For example, you may choose to have a portfolio structure.

The most important point is that whatever your outputs are they should have a logical and coherent structure to make sense.

Miscellaneous

All letters and questionnaires sent out under the rubric of Leeds Beckett University should have been approved by the supervisor concerned.

Typing of questionnaires cannot be carried out by us. Ask your supervisor for advice on this.

Expenses incurred as part of the dissertation cannot be reimbursed by the University. You should not plan studies involving postal surveys, travel expense etc. if you are unable to obtain financial support.

Word processing services are advertised in the University. Get an estimate of the cost before you decide who will undertake this work. Copying services are available in the University Student Union.

Cover Title

The outside front cover should have the title of the work in 24pt (8mm) lettering.

Presentation

Where a student has elected to undertake traditional dissertation submission where the word count is 11 000 words word count penalties are applied. The beginning of the introduction to the end of the conclusion and recommendations before the reference list are included in the word count. Where students are not writing a ‘standard’ dissertation you should have an equivalence of 11,000 words in the material.

All information in the main text e.g. tables, charts, references, direct quotes will be included in this word count.

All students are required to declare the word count when submitting the assignment on the assignment submission form and on the front page of their assignment.

Assignments will be submitted using an acceptable font such as Times New Roman or Arial font size 12 with minimum 1.5 line spacing

The dissertation will have a title page with the title on, your name, the date of submission and the sentence “Submitted in part fulfilment for the requirements of the MSc in Public Health – Health Promotion, Leeds Beckett University”.

The next few pages should include acknowledgements, a list of contents (including appendices), a list of tables, figures, plates (pictures or photos), maps, a list of acronyms and abbreviations and the abstract.

The dissertation must include an abstract. The abstract is often the first section that a reader or examiner reads. It should have a maximum of 300 words. It needs to describe the whole dissertation and, therefore, is usually the last part of the dissertation that you will write. It should provide a succinct summary of the key points, including the research questions or objectives, rationale for the project, methodology, main findings and conclusions. The abstract should be accompanied by 3-4 key words, under which a dissertation can be catalogued.

You will have read abstracts attached to published papers; these give the reader a concise overview and enable the reader to decide whether to read further.

The order of these preliminary pages should be as follows:

Title page
Abstract
Dedications (if wished) and acknowledgements
Contents
List of tables, figures, maps, abbreviations etc. (in separate lists) with page numbers.

Pages covering points 1 to 5 should be numbered in Roman numerals. Standard page numbering will then start from chapter one. The contents page need not be too detailed; chapter headings and only key subheadings should be included. The contents page will usually be only one page long.

Care must be taken to thoroughly proof read the dissertation and adhere to all the criteria and the following guidance. Although presentation is only a small component of the overall marking scheme it is still very important that care is taken.

Layout

Margins at the binding (left hand) edge should be not less than 40mm and other margins not less than 20mm. Typing shall be in one and a half line spacing (except for intended quotations or footnotes where single-line spacing may be used) and on one side of the paper only.

FONT SIZE: This must be 12 and preferably Times New Roman, Arial or another suitably legible and appropriate for an academic piece of work.

TABLES: All tables must be labelled, with a table number and title.

DO NOT use numbers in the text to number every paragraph. However you may number sections within chapter if this helps you provide a more logical sequence and structure.

Chapter headings should be also numbered.

DO NOT over use bullet points or other means of breaking up the text in point style. This is appropriate for a report, but not for an academic thesis. Use bullet points sparingly and use them for a good reason.

PAGINATION: Pages shall be numbered consecutively through the dissertation including photographs and/or diagrams where possible. Page numbers should be located in the top right-hand corner of the page.

ABBREVIATIONS: Where abbreviations are used, a key shall be provided.

Drawings, Maps, Computer Print-out etc. Wherever practicable, such illustrative matter should have a binding margin of at least 40mm and if possible be bound in the thesis near the appropriate text. Materials which cannot conveniently be bound in the thesis should be included in a pocket inside the book cover.

The Harvard system of citation MUST be used consistently and correctly throughout the dissertation (and in essays and other written work). For detailed guidance you should consult Skills for Learning on the Intranet or the booklet “Quote Unquote”.

Examination of the Dissertation

Your dissertation is independently marked by two tutors. Your own dissertation supervisor will be the second marker. Dissertations are then made available to the external examiner. There is no routine oral examination of the dissertations but an oral with the external examiner can be requested by internal or external examiners. Dissertations can be considered at either of the two Examination Boards that take place in the year. The decision of the Board will be available to you via results on line within five working days of the Board meeting.

Some common reasons for failing:

The level of writing is not up to the standard for the MSc to be awarded.

The research objectives or questions are not addressed at all or adequately.

The research is flawed such that the research objectives cannot be addressed.

There has been inadequate attention to some sections of the dissertation and the weaknesses cannot be compensated by other chapters.

Methods have not been adequately described; you need to include full details of how you carried out the research, how the sample was drawn, etc. Include copies of questionnaires, interview schedules etc. in the appendices (but not all your interview transcripts).

There are major weaknesses in the presentation of the design of the study and the details of implementation.

Analysis of data and presentation of data is not appropriate; incorrect statistical tests used.

There are significant omissions from the references.

The document has not been proof read; there are many typographical errors.

The confidentiality of participants/subjects has not been appropriately protected.

There are sections missing (such as an abstract or appendices), or there are pages missing.

There is too much reliance on secondary sources; for example, you should not use a source such as Naidoo and Wills for information on key texts such as WHO documents. You should go to the original sources yourself.

The research was conducted by a team and you have not made it clear how much you have done as an individual, and where others have contributed.

There is plagiarism and use of words that are too close to another text! See the sections on plagiarism and cheating.

The qualitative data has been insufficiently analysed, or not enough data has been presented.

11 Dissemination

The nature and range of interested people will depend to some extent on the study you have carried out. The next stage is to decide what the most appropriate way is to reach the people you have listed.

There may be some people who would like a copy of your full dissertation and you may receive requests for this. More often a shortened form would be more in demand such as:

Paper for a peer reviewed journal;

Paper for a professional journal;

Conference presentation (a paper or poster);

Web site entry;

Seminar paper;

Short report for a newsletter;

Press release;

Short summary of your work to a relevant committee

Increasingly researchers are being encouraged to disseminate as widely as possible and as promptly as possible. In some cases all the above outlets may be appropriate for a piece of work. More commonly, a selection of these outputs would be made. For example, the work in MSc dissertations is not so topical that it merits a press release, although it can be. The MSc is a learning experience and, for a number of reasons, it may not be appropriate to write up the work for a peer reviewed journal, although some past students have been successful in getting their work published. In some cases, students have co-authored a paper with their supervisor.

In terms of impact on professional practice, it may be more important to look for a professional journal or a newsletter. If you have promised feedback to people who have been involved in your study, it is very important that this is provided. Sometimes people are too modest about the work they have undertaken and hide it away. In most cases dissertations will contain material which is of interest and use to others. Over the course of your last tutorials with your supervisor, before you submit your work, you may wish to have a brief discussion about your dissemination plans.

The findings are the intellectual property of Leeds Beckett University as the research is being undertaken as a student of the University. If you publish the work then your affiliation is School of Health, Faculty Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University.

Feedback on Your Assessments

Feedback forms a large part of your learning experience and is vital to your personal and professional development. Whatever your academic level, building on your feedback is vital. Noting and acting on feedback is key to independent learning, continued progress and long-term success. https://libguides.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/skills-for-learning/building-on-feedback

Understanding Your Assessment Responsibilities

Please refer to Course Handbook/edit summary information below as appropriate.

Extenuating Circumstances and Mitigation

If you are experiencing problems which are adversely affecting your ability to study (called ‘extenuating circumstances’), then you can apply for mitigation. You can find full details of how to apply for mitigation at: https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/student-information/exams-assessments-and-awards/mitigation-and extenuating-circumstances/.

The University operates a fit to sit/fit to submit approach to extenuating circumstances which means students who take their assessment are declaring themselves fit to do so. More information is available at the above link and here: https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/student-information/exams-assessments-and awards/examinations/

Late Submission

Without any form of extenuating circumstances, standard penalties apply for late submission of assessed work. Details of the penalties for late submission of course work are available in the Academic Regulations, section 3, Education and Assessment: https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/our-university/public-information/academic-regulations/.

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is a fundamental principle within the University and is strongly linked to good academic practice. All assessments must be submitted with due attention to issues of academic integrity, expression, and good academic practice, including clarity in grammar, semantics and syntax.

Any suspected breach of academic integrity will be investigated by the University and could have serious consequences on your studies. Breaches of academic integrity include (but are not limited to) plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion and contract cheating. Definitions and the potential consequences of an admitted or found breach of academic integrity are detailed in the Academic Regulations, section 10 Academic Integrity: https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/our-university/public-information/academic-regulations/.

There are a range of resources available to help you understand what is and what is not permitted and how to use other people’s ideas in your assessed work. These include the LBU Academic Integrity tutorial, which is available on Academic Integrity Tutorial for 2023/24 and the Skills for Learning website which you can access here https://libguides.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/skills-for-learning/.

The ‘Academic Integrity Factsheet for Students’ is available to view at:

https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/student-information/academic-skills-and-advice/academic-integrity/.

Your Feedback on the Module

A mid-module review will be timetabled into your module by week 6. This is an opportunity to resolve modular issues promptly early on in the module. In addition, you will have the opportunity to provide feedback formally at the end of your module-. These comments will be reviewed by your course team and some may be considered via the course monitoring and enhancement process, in which your Course Representative is involved.

Appendix 1 – Checklist for handing in your dissertation

MSc Public Health – Health Promotion Checklist for handing in your dissertation Your name:

Brief title of dissertation:

Date:

Number of words: (Excluding appendices and bibliography) Write Yes to the following if you have done them:

I have proof-read and corrected any typing errors in the dissertation:

I have properly protected confidentiality of participants where appropriate:

I have included all references:

I have included all pages, and all the relevant sections of the dissertation:

I can certify that the dissertation was written by me and is solely my work:

Appendix 2 – Empirical Study Marking Form