Guide to Population Health Honours

2015

Population Health Honours Proposal Part 1 PUBH7401Population Health Honours Proposal Part 2 PUBH7402

Population Health Honours Program Part 1 PUBH7411Population Health Honours Program Part 2 PUBH7412

Assistant Professor Ian Li

Revised November 2014

1

Honours at a glance

Title POPULATION HEALTH HONOURS PROPOSAL PART 1 PUBH7401

POPULATION HEALTH HONOURS PROPOSAL PART 2 PUBH7402

POPULATION HEALTH HONOURS PROGRAM PART 1 PUBH7411

POPULATION HEALTH HONOURS PROGRAM PART 2 PUBH7412

Program Co-ordinator

Assistant Professor Ian LiSchool of Population HealthTel: 6488 1295 Email: IAN.LI@UWA.EDU.AUFax: 6488 1188

Unit Aim Population Health Honours aims to provide students with the ability to design and undertake research and thereby contribute to the future development of population health.

Teaching methods Independent research under the guidance of a supervisor(s) and supported by seminars/workshops.

Assessment A range of formative and summative assessments - see page 9

Links with other units

This unit develops and consolidates the knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate study, with particular emphasis on utilizing those skills in a sustained and purposeful way in conducting independent research. Honours require application of the teaching and learning from health research methods, health science practicum, and other units in the public health and the science majors.

Essential Advice Take responsibility for your Honours. Your supervisor will provide guidance but you must direct the project. For honours it is important to take into account the skills you learnt in HSMD 2216 such as time management, management of information, project management skills (initiate, plan, etc) and computer skills.It also helps to take into account the research methods and critiquing skills that you learnt in the research units, which you completed in third year.You need to display careful planning, consistent effort and a high level of organisation.Send documents to your supervisor in a timely fashion; they need adequate time to be able to read and respond to drafts of your material. Discuss problems with your supervisor or the program co-ordinator early rather than later.

AcknowledgementsThis guidebook and appendices were originally developed by Drs Lorna Rosenwax, Jane Heyworth, Siobhan Hickling, Rachael Moorin and Julie Saunders.

Table of contentsTABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................... iiiINTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1WHAT IS HONOURS?........................................................................................................................1ELIGIBILITY FOR POPULATION HEALTH HONOURS.............................................................1ENROLMENT INTO HONOURS.......................................................................................................1TASKS AND TIMELINE....................................................................................................................2LEARNING OUTCOMES...................................................................................................................3CHOICE OF TOPIC............................................................................................................................5RESTRICTIONS ON PROJECTS SUITABLE FOR SCHOOL OF POPULATION HEALTH HONOURS STUDENTS......................................................................................................................5SUPERVISION.....................................................................................................................................5ADVICE FOR STUDENTS IN CHOOSING AND WORKING WITH A SUPERVISOR...............6CHOOSING YOUR SUPERVISOR....................................................................................................6RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STUDENT........................................................................................8ABSENCE.............................................................................................................................................8SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.............................................................................................................8ACCOMMODATION & DATA SECURITY......................................................................................8FUNDS FOR HONOURS DISSERTATION RESEARCH PROJECTS............................................9HONOURS WORKSHOPS.................................................................................................................9ETHICAL CLEARANCES..................................................................................................................9ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................................................10THE PROPOSAL...............................................................................................................................10SUPERVISOR REPORTS.................................................................................................................11ATTENDANCE AT UWA RESEARCH SEMINARS AND THE REFLECTIVE JOURNAL.......11THE ESSAY.......................................................................................................................................11THE DISSERTATION.......................................................................................................................12HONOURS GRADE...........................................................................................................................14GUIDELINES FOR HANDLING PLAGIARISM............................................................................14ENDNOTE..........................................................................................................................................15PRINTING ACCOUNT......................................................................................................................15APPENDIX 1: COMPONENTS OF THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL.....................................16APPENDIX 2: SUBMISSION AND ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL........................................................................................................................................18APPENDIX 3: SUPERVISOR ASSESSMENT REPORTS 1,2 AND 3 AND GUIDELINES.........23APPENDIX 4: ESSAY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES...................................................................26APPENDIX 5: SEMINAR ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES..............................................................28APPENDIX 6: POSSIBLE STRUCTURE FOR DISSERTATION INVOLVING ORIGINAL ANALYSIS OF DATA........................................................................................................................30APPENDIX 7: STRUCTURE FOR DISSERTATION INVOLVING A CRITIQUE OF THE LITERATURE....................................................................................................................................32APPENDIX 8: DISSERTATION BINDING & COVER PAGE FORMAT....................................34APPENDIX 9: ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR DISSERTATION..........................................36

APPENDIX 10: CONFIRMATION OF TOPIC FORM..................................................................42APPENDIX 11: USEFUL RESOURCES..........................................................................................43

IntroductionThere are many benefits related to completion of an Honours Degree. For some, an Honours programme may serve to enhance educational attainment and provide graduates with a valuable additional qualification that expands employment opportunities. Employers value the reliability and capacity for independent work, the skill at writing substantial reports, and content knowledge, all of which are demonstrated by successful completion of Honours. For others, Honours may be the commencement of training in research and academia; it opens the way for postgraduate research and enhances opportunities of being granted a scholarship for postgraduate study. Whatever the reason, completion of Honours will indicate you are one of The University of Western Australia’s most accomplished undergraduates. Your participation in the Honours program will provide a valuable contribution to the intellectual life of the University and ensure you receive the highest standards of undergraduate training in your chosen field(s) of study.

What is Honours?Population Health Honours comprises four units, Population Health Honours Proposal parts 1 & 2 PUBH7401 & PUBH7402 (6 points) and Population Health Honours Program parts 1 & 2 PUBH7411 & PUBH7412 (42 points). These units represent the equivalent of two semesters’ full time study. Honours students will participate in original research by the conduct of a supervised research project, a presentation and preparation of an Honours dissertation. They will also participate in the School seminar program and write an essay on an ethical issue in research.

The Honours program has been designed to develop participants’ research competencies, and to facilitate participants’ contribution to the future development of public health through research. It aims to educate participants on how to conduct scientific research. The program is designed to enhance observational skills and develop relevant practical skills; lateral thinking and problem solving; literacy and communication skills; as well as professional responsibility and ethical conduct.

Eligibility for Population Health Honours To be eligible to participate in the Population Health Honours program you need to have successfully completed a Bachelor of Health Science with a weighted average of at least 65 per cent overall for level three (level four for the combined degree program) in both your science and public health majors; a pass mark in the unit HSMD3316 Health Industry Practicum; and be accepted into the school’s Honours program. Students who have a degree deemed equivalent by the Head of School and have achieved a grade point average of at least 65 also may be eligible at the discretion of the Head of School.

Enrolment into HonoursYou are required to provide the School of Population Health (SPH) with details of the supervisor(s), topic and the School(s) involved, if a jointly supervised project is to be undertaken, by 9th January 2015 if you intend to enrol in semester 1, 2015 using the form in Appendix 10. The form can be submitted by email to the program coordinator.

1

Tasks and Timeline

Task Timeline

(Sem 1 enrolment)

Decide which topic area you would like to pursue in Honours – it might be related to your public health major or be cross disciplinary.

See available topics at: http://www.sph.uwa.edu.au/students/honours

Ask the School Honours Co-ordinator for assistance in choosing a topic and finding a supervisor or

Decide which academic you would like to supervise your project, and agree on a topic.

November 2014 to January 2015

Submit completed topic confirmation form to unit co-ordinator (see Appendix 10)

9th January 2015

Present seminar on honours proposal In week 2 of semester 1

Submit written proposal By Friday of week 7 of semester 1

Commence carrying out the practical work of your project Throughout year

Supervisor progress report 1 Week 8 of semester 1

Receive feedback on proposal Week 9 of semester 1

Continue working on project Throughout year

Ethics Essay By Friday of week 11 of semester 1

Supervisor progress report 2 By Friday of week 1 of semester 2

Dissertation seminar Around week 13 of semester 2, to be advised

Submission of dissertation for examination Week 11 of semester 2

Submit reflective Journal Week 12 of semester 2

Supervisor progress report 3 Week 12 of semester 2

2

Learning outcomes Learning outcome Themes Teaching and learning

experiencesAssessment Graduate outcomes

Work independently. Personal development and professional practice

Independent research Supervisor feedback(Formative and summative)

Manage own responsibilities, roles and time

Develop a research question/ hypothesis.

Scientific investigation and critical thinking

Independent researchDiscussions with Supervisor WorkshopSPH seminars

Supervisor feedback (formative)Proposal Seminar (formative)Written Proposal (summative) Reflective journal

Utilise an evidence-based approach to health issues

Be able to search and retrieve literature appropriate to a topic.

Scientific investigation and critical thinking

Independent researchDiscussions with Supervisor Workshop

Supervisor feedback (formative)Proposal feedback (summative)Dissertation (summative)

Demonstrate ability in information literacy

Critically appraise existing scientific literature relevant to research topic.

Scientific investigation and critical thinking

Independent researchWorkshopDiscussions with Supervisor Health Research Design PUBH2205 or equivalentFdns of Epidemiology PUBH2206 or equivalent

Supervisor feedback (formative and summative)Proposal feedback(Formative and summative)Dissertation Seminar (Formative and summative)Dissertation (summative)

Critically evaluate scientific literature

Design and justify appropriate research methods.

Scientific investigation and critical thinking

Independent researchDiscussions with Supervisor Third year research unitsSPH seminars

Supervisor feedback (formative)Proposal Seminar (formative)Written Proposal (summative) Dissertation Seminar (formative and summative)Dissertation (Summative)

Describe, implement and evaluate research methods

Implement a research strategy Scientific investigation and critical thinking

Independent researchDiscussions with SupervisorSPH seminars

Supervision reports (ongoing) (formative and summative)Dissertation Seminar (formative and summative)Dissertation (summative)

Describe, implement and evaluate research methodsApply research techniques and design

3

Learning outcome Themes Teaching and learning experiences

Assessment Graduate outcomes

Demonstrate scholarly communication of research aims, methods, results and interpretations

Personal Development and Professional Practice

WorkshopsDiscussions with Supervisor SPH seminars

Proposal Seminar (formative)Written Proposal (summative) Dissertation Seminar (formative and summative)Dissertation (summative)

Demonstrate effective communication with professional and non-professional persons

Interpret research results within a broader public health context.

Scientific basis of health science

SPH seminarsDiscussions with Supervisor

Dissertation Seminar (formative and summative)Dissertation (summative)Reflective journal

Demonstrate skills and knowledge in the context of science adapted to health settings.

Discuss the ethical implications associated with research

Personal development and professional practice

Workshops Independent research

Ethics essay (summative) Develop positions on ethical issues informed by scientific understanding.

Effectively manage a project Personal development and professional practice

Independent researchDiscussions with supervisor

Supervision reports (ongoing) (formative and summative)

Effectively manage a project

Accept, interpret and respond appropriately to feedback.

Personal development and professional practice

Supervisor discussions and feedback

Supervision reports (ongoing) (formative and summative) Proposal seminar (formative)Written proposal (summative)

Use reflective practice

4

Choice of topicThe policy on your choice of topic is that the subject matter must be relevant to public health. Cross-disciplinary topics are encouraged. The School of Population Health has a large number of research projects available; see the website below for more details.

You may select a topic of your own choice, or you may consult with academic staff in your chosen area of interest for assistance in choosing a topic. You are encouraged to talk to academic staff about their various research projects to identify possible topics. The School website shows the research programs within the school and list current research projects; see the website below for more details.

Some dissertations will involve detailed statistical analysis and interpretation of a body of data. The student may collect original data specifically for the research (e.g. from human or animal laboratory experiments, surveys or other) or may analyse existing data in an original manner. Other dissertation projects are based on the analysis of published documents such as policies relating to a particular aspect of public health. Students undertaking such a dissertation are expected to collate, integrate and critically appraise the relevant literature, and evaluate current practice and policy in the light of the literature. Other methods of inquiry may also be permitted. In summary, there is a wide diversity of subject matter and methods of enquiry that are suitable as dissertation topics. It often helps to view Honours dissertations from previous years. These are available in the Clifton Street Conference Room- see the SPH reception to gain access.

Honours project booklet available at http://www.sph.uwa.edu.au/students/honoursSchool Research Programs available at http://www.sph.uwa.edu.au/

Restrictions on projects suitable for SPH honours students

Please note that the SPH has strict policies regarding undergraduate students’ research projects namely:

1. Undergraduate students (which include Honours students) are not allowed to access identifiable data from confidential patient records. This policy supersedes any ethical approval that would otherwise allow access. This policy does not pertain to data collected directly from consented patients / study subjects by the student.

2. Honours students are NOT permitted to hold individual level patient data for their project (identifiable, re-identifiable or non-identifiable) on non SPH computers (ie home desktops or laptop computers). All analyses of such data MUST be undertaken either within the confines of a SPH machine or within the confines of a machine at the workplace of the principal supervisor for example at TICHR.

3. All individual level data MUST be de-identified either at the source or by the supervisor upon receipt prior to analysis by the student.

SupervisionEach dissertation must be supervised by at least one member of academic staff of SPH. An external person may co-supervise, especially when the project is industry based. Make an appointment to meet with several possible supervisors to discuss their projects, their approach to supervision and their availability. When you have decided upon a principal supervisor (and co-supervisor, where applicable), check that this decision is suitable to both the supervisor(s) and the School Honours Co-ordinator.

5

Because of the diversity of the interests of students, on occasions no member of academic staff will be expert in the content area of your dissertation. If this is the case, expert external co-supervision is essential. Academic supervisors can help you identify the most suitable external co-supervisor.

Advice for students in choosing and working with a supervisorOne piece of advice we feel is very important for you is that you take ownership of your honours project from the beginning. Your relationship with your supervisor is different to the relationship you have had with the undergraduate teaching staff. You should not see yourself as a research assistant following the instructions of your supervisor, but rather see yourself as running the project with your supervisor there to guide and mentor you in the process of research.

To enable you to make this transition more easily we have put together some information to help you choose a supervisor, to guide you as to what to expect from your supervisor and also what to discuss at your first meeting.

Choosing your supervisorGenerally, allocation of supervisors is a matter for individual negotiation between student and supervisor, and both students and supervisors are free to choose to work together. From your perspective this is a choice that should be made with great care, because the effectiveness of the student-supervisor relationship will have a large effect on your honours experience.

The role of the supervisor is to advise, guide and provide constructive feedback to you through the processes of choosing a realistic topic, designing a viable project, doing the research, interpreting the findings and writing the dissertation.

Things to do before deciding on a supervisor:

talk with a few prospective supervisors about their styles of supervision and what they expect of their students;

talk with your prospective supervisors' current and former honours students about their experiences; and

talk with prospective supervisors about their research interests and prospective topics.

Select a supervisor whom you expect will:

maintain an interested, professional, mutually respectful and supportive supervisory relationship with you throughout your project;

meet with you regularly to discuss your research;

provide on-going clear, adequate, good-quality advice on the planning and execution of your research;

provide you with timely and constructive feedback on all aspects of your work; and

guide you through the completion of your degree and into the next stage of your career.

6

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SUPERVISORThe principal supervisor is responsible for the completion of student reports and for any other administrative matters pertaining to the student. In general terms, supervisors adopt the following code of practice:

provide academic guidance;

establish open and good communication;

assist the student to obtain ethics permission in semester one;

meet frequently with the student (on average at least one hour per week);

provide advice on ethical matters pertaining to the student’s research;

advise on the preparation of the research proposal, financial plan and operational plans;

respond to work within a reasonable time;

provide consistent advice;

avoid additional requirements once parameters are already agreed;

give the student feedback on satisfactory and unsatisfactory progress;

have a reasonable level of expectation regarding what a student can and should accomplish in a dissertation;

protect the student from unreasonable demands;

assist the student at those times when the voice of a staff member advocate is needed;

keep the student informed about relevant regulations and administrative processes in the School and University, and refer the student to appropriate guidelines;

inform the student of impediments that might adversely affect their progress, such as the supervisor being away for part of the semester;

generally aid the student in pursuing the project and maintain sufficiently close contact with the student’s work;

maintain an interest in the topic;

maintain an interest in the student as a person and be interested in the student’s welfare; and

view supervision as an important responsibility, deserving of his or her attention and time.

Management of conflict and changing supervisors

It is possible that at some time during Honours you will disagree with your supervisor(s), even if it is only a friendly disagreement. Fortunately, disagreement over academic theory or the content of the dissertation is unusual. The most common disagreement involves misunderstanding about the other’s expectations with respect to supervision or satisfactory progress. In these instances you and your supervisor(s) should make every effort to understand the point at issue and to work towards a solution that is mutually acceptable. If, despite a concerted and genuine attempt, you reach the situation where every possible means of resolving the conflict has been exhausted to no avail, and the lack of resolution is detrimental to your progress, discuss the matter with one of the School Honours Co-ordinators or the Head of School. It is expected that the Head of School will become involved infrequently in the management of conflict between a student and supervisor(s), and that in the vast majority of instances it will be possible for the parties to resolve the matter themselves.

Changing a supervisor is not always easy or possible, and can be a sensitive matter; all the more reason to make the initial choice carefully. Further, there may not be another supervisor in your area. If you do wish to change supervisors, please arrange to discuss the matter with one of the School Honours Co-ordinators or the Head of School. The more informal and low-key these procedures can be, the better they are for all concerned. Be wary about denigrating supervisors in front of others.

7

Responsibilities of the Student

From a supervisor’s viewpoint, there is an ideal student. He or she will complete a good dissertation; show initiative but accept guidance; is not a ‘You tell me what is required and I'll do it’ - minimum competency student; displays personal integrity and meets commitments; is able to write; is enthusiastic; is keen to communicate the results; is able to think; and keeps in regular contact.

You are expected to initiate meetings and be prepared for them. Learn the supervisor's style (the best way is to ask them); resist the impulse to present rough copies or first drafts before you have thoroughly checked them; always submit material on which serious effort has been expended and note that you are responsible for deadlines. The following code of practice is suggested for Health Science students undertaking Honours. The student will:

develop a detailed research proposal, including an operational plan with deadlines;

accomplish tasks on time, or explain why this is not possible;

be enthusiastic;

be open to suggestions and to advice, but also show independence and initiative;

develop independent scholarly thought and enquiry;

have integrity and diligence in research and writing;

arrange meetings with the supervisor, preferably at regular intervals, and keep in regular communication;

prepare legible documents for comment;

follow a method of presentation which maximises the use of the supervisor’s time;

be honest when reporting on progress and results;

be reasonable in making demands on the time of the supervisor and other experts;

maintain an interest in the supervisor as a teacher and scholar;

uphold the academic standards and good reputation of the School; and

become aware of academic regulations and administrative requirements of the degree.

AbsenceIf a planned or unavoidable absence occurs during Honours, inform your supervisor and the Honours co-ordinator. In the case of prolonged absence due to a medical condition, a medical certificate must be submitted to your supervisor and honours co-ordinators. If prolonged absence occurs, a deferment may be the best option.

Special ConsiderationIf there are any reasons why your dissertation work is not progressing as well it should do, you must let your supervisors and/or the honours co-ordinators know as soon as possible. If there are extenuating circumstances that mean you will require special consideration or an extension, you must inform your supervisor and the honours co-ordinators prior to submission of the assessment piece. The extent to which these factors can be taken into account after the fact, is very limited. Hence we can only stress again the need to alert us to any potential or existing problems as soon as possible, even if they may not necessarily affect your ability to complete on time or to an accepted standard.

Accommodation & Data SecurityYou will be allocated desk space, chair and computer within SPH. At the conclusion of Honours you will be required to clean up your desk, send all data files to your supervisor, delete all your files from your computer and vacate the space. Any individual level data or other data where individuals are potentially

8

identifiable that you require access to as part of your honours project must be kept in an authorised secure environment such as a locked filing cabinet or your allocated computer within the School of Population Health. Specific data security issues should be discussed with your supervisor.

Funds for Honours Dissertation Research ProjectsThe School does not provide funding for honours research projects other than the provision of a computer, workspace, photocopying, printing and general office consumables. All other costs, including the cost of large scale mailouts to study participants are the responsibility of the student or their supervisor. You should discuss with your supervisor if adequate funding is available for your project at your first meeting.

Honours Workshops Student Services offers an excellent series of workshops on generic skills and principles relating to the fundamentals of research management and thesis writing. Details of these workshops can be found at www.studentservices.uwa.edu.au. Honours students are encouraged to attend.

The School of Population Health also provides in-house workshops to students completing honours including:

1. Introduction to structure of the honours program;2. How to write an honours proposal;3. Setting up your word processing templates and other hints;4. Reviewing the literature;5. Preparing a master document;6. Writing up the methods and results (including the presentation of graphs and figures);7. Writing your discussion;8. Presentation style; and9. How to write a paper/ career directions.

Ethical ClearancesAll research projects involving participation of subjects, or the use of information about people for a purpose for which permission has not already been obtained, need approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Western Australia. You may also require approval from the Ethics committee covering the institution where your study will take place. Your supervisor is responsible for ensuring that you obtain sufficient approval. Your supervisor and the Honours Co-ordinator need to identify early in your first semester of candidature if formal ethics approval is required so that approval can be obtained in a timely fashion.

If you are proposing to conduct a quality assurance study, you should apply to either the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Western Australia for exemption from formal ethical review or to the Ethics Committee covering the institution where your study will take place. The procedures to be followed for the UWA committee are available at:

http://www.research.uwa.edu.au/welcome/research_services/Ethics/human_ethics/forms_guidelines_policies2?f=90241

Assessment Summary of Assessment

9

Assessment MarksDue Date

(Sem 1 enrolment)Unit

Proposal Seminar Formative Week 2, sem 1 PUBH7401 & 7402

Written Proposal 70% Friday, Week 7, sem 1 PUBH7401 & 7402

Supervisor Report 1 Formative Week 8, sem 1 PUBH7401 & 7402

Essay 20% Friday, week 11, sem 1 PUBH7401 & 7402

Supervisor Report 2 Formative Friday, week 1, sem 2 PUBH7411 & 7412

Dissertation Seminar 15% To be advised PUBH7411 & 7412

Dissertation 70% Week 11, sem 2 PUBH7411 & 7412

Attendance at UWA research seminars

10%On-going

PUBH7401 & 7402

Reflective Journal Week 12, sem 2

Supervisor Report 3 15% Week 12, sem 2 PUBH7411 & 7412

The ProposalYou are required to present an oral and written proposal for consideration prior to undertaking the research for the dissertation. Preparation of the proposal requires that you read the relevant literature, identify ethical issues arising from the program of research, and make a realistic assessment of the time and budget (where relevant) required for the project. The essential components of the dissertation proposal are provided in Appendix 1.

Your proposal must be reviewed by your supervisor before presentation and submission. The oral presentation will take place as part of the School of Population Health Seminar Program. The presentation should be 15 minutes in length, allowing a further 10 minutes for questions.

The intention of this seminar is for you to receive feedback on your proposed research by a broader audience. The questions and comments made at this seminar will be very valuable for further refinement and planning of your project. We have allowed time to enable you to incorporate any useful feedback from the seminar into the written proposal.

You will then pass the written proposal onto the School Honours Co-ordinator for assessment and approval. Two members of the academic staff, chosen by the School Honours Co-ordinator will assess the dissertation proposal. They will recommend whether the research be allowed to proceed without change, whether modifications should be made to the proposal or whether the topic is unsuitable for a dissertation. They will also provide an independent assessment of whether approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee is necessary. Most proposals are approved without modification or with minor modifications only. The aim is to provide you with an assessment of the proposal within two weeks of its submission. The proposal submission form and guidelines for the assessment of the written proposal are shown in Appendix 2.

10

&

Supervisor reportsThroughout the year you will meet with your supervisor(s) to assess your progress on your honours project. Your supervisor will be asked to rate your ability on several factors that are directly linked to the learning outcomes of this program. The assessment criteria are shown in Appendix 3. A student who shows initiative and takes ownership of their project while taking on board feedback from their supervisor(s), is more likely to score at the higher end of this scale.

The first two reports from the supervisor(s) should be discussed with you so that you may see the areas in which you are doing well and the areas for improvement. There should be open discussion about these between you and your supervisor.

Attendance at UWA Research Seminars and the Reflective JournalStudents are required to attend at least 10 (ten) research seminars held at UWA. These must include but should not be limited to all research seminars held by the School of Population Health, for example Masters and PhD proposal seminars. If you do not attend a SPH seminar, you must inform the unit coordinator and provide a reason for your lack of availability.

In addition, students are required to submit a journal which reflects upon their honours experience. The entries should include one short reflective report for each of the seminars attended and a short (one page max) reflection of your experience in each month of your candidature unless you have special circumstances and hence agreement from the Honours Co-ordinator to provide less.

Each entry should consist of a brief description of your research journey to date including any problems/successes you have encountered with your project and if problems have occurred, your plans to remedy them. You should also reflect on your developing abilities as a researcher and comment on any changes in your perception / attitudes towards the program and your project. Thus it is important to re-read previous entries and to use these as a reference for your previous experiences / thoughts.

Your reflective journal will be assessed on a pass/fail basis. To gain a pass you need to have included at least 80% of the required entries.

Please feel free to submit your first couple of journal entries for formative assessment. Summative assessment will take place at the end of the year.

The Essay The essay focuses on ethical issues on research. You have a choice of either addressing an ethics essay customised to your topic, or to discuss ethical issues associated with the study outlined below and explain how you would address these in the research strategy, funding and ethics applications.

Essay Topic

Vesico ureteric reflux (VUR) appears to have a strong familial component as it is often present in multiple individuals across several generations within a single family. You are part of a research group currently designing a study to determine if there is evidence for a genetic cause for VUR in children under the age of 6 years. The study will require that DNA be extracted from blood samples obtained from all study participants. You anticipate that the most appropriate study design will be a case control study and have defined the cases as children under 6 years of age who have been diagnosed with VUR. The controls for the study will be children aged 6 years who have not been diagnosed with VUR or had a medical history of urinary tract infections. The study participants would ideally include the recruited children and their family members such as siblings, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. Due

11

to the invasive nature of the study your colleagues are keen to give a scratchy to all those invited to participate so as to improve recruitment.

Guidelines for the essayThis assessment piece should take the form of a standard essay. We are looking for your ability to identify and explain ethical issues, propose strategies to overcome any barriers you have identified and apply them to this hypothetical situation. It should be 2,500 to 3,000 words in length.

The structure of your essay should include:

1. a descriptive title;

2. an introduction – purpose of the paper, briefly define the topic and a brief statement of your

overall conclusion;

3. a body – present and evaluate the issues, present an argument or point of view for each issue in

the form of a discussion with reference to the literature;

4. a conclusion – summarise the paper, include key issues and arguments and any implications for

the study; and

5. a list of references – use either Harvard or Vancouver style.

Resources for this assessment:NH&MRC guidelines http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm For basic principles see Gordis L 2004 Epidemiology Chapter 20 3rd ed. Elsevier Saunders.

Assessment guidelines for this essay are shown in Appendix 4.

The Dissertation

Dissertation Seminar The dissertation seminar will be held either one week prior or one week following the submission of the dissertation to be decided by majority decision of the students enrolled. The seminar will be 20 minutes in length with a further 10 minutes for questions. Each student presents the background, research aims, methods and outcomes of their project and provides an interpretation of their results.

Guidelines for the assessment of the seminar are attached as Appendix 5.

Students must submit an abstract of their seminar one week prior to the seminar date.

Structure of the DissertationDissertations show wide variations in content, style and presentation so it is not possible to be prescriptive regarding the structure and content of a dissertation. The final format is a consequence of a dialogue between you and your supervisor(s). One of the best ways to appreciate the possible variation in the structure of a dissertation is to peruse completed Honours dissertations which are held in a locked bookshelf in the Clifton Street conference room. The key to this cabinet is available from the SPH reception but dissertations must be browsed in the conference room. They must not be removed from this room. The typical dissertation includes a title page, abstract, table of contents, acknowledgments, main text, references, and appendices. Please remember to acknowledge your supervisor(s).

12

As noted earlier, dissertations tend to follow one of two models. The first involves original analysis of data. The second involves a critique of existing literature, with or without data collection. Possible structures for the two types of dissertations are provided in Appendices 6 and 7. Do not be concerned, however, if your dissertation does not follow either of these models.

There are many excellent texts on writing style, including Strunk and White (1979), Zeiger (1991), Murray and Hay-Row (1986) and Lindsay (1984).

It is remarkable how much time is required to tidy-up your dissertation once the writing is completed. This includes checking references, ensuring good quality figures and tables, ensuring that the correct style has been used throughout, typing, editing, numbering pages, inserting a table of contents and checking for spelling and typographical errors. Allow time for formatting your dissertation.

Presentation and submission of the DissertationDissertations should be typed on A4 paper with a left hand margin of 4cm. Eleven or 12-pitch typescript with 1.5 spacing between lines is recommended. Once the style for tables, drawing and labelling diagrams has been decided upon, it should be adhered to throughout the dissertation. You are required to place a ‘declaration’ page in your thesis acknowledging persons who assisted you in any aspect of your thesis (methods, practical work, analyses, writing) and the extent of their assistance. The length of the dissertation should be approximately 15,000 words.

The dissertation must be temporarily bound for examination. Spiral binding can be done at the Guild Copy Centre or at the School of Population Health in the Clifton street building. Snap Printing also bind documents. Students must submit their dissertations by the due date specified. Three bound copies are required plus one unbound, unmarked copy.

Following examination and corrections, at least three copies of the dissertation will be bound; one copy for each of your supervisors, one for the School library and one for you. Additional copies may be purchased at your expense (about $35.00 per copy).

Instructions for permanent binding of the thesis and the format of the cover page are given in Appendix 8: The cover page of both the temporarily bound and final bound copy of the dissertation should be as indicated.

Submission of the dissertation requires supervisor(s) approval, and this should be clearly indicated on page 2 of the dissertation (following the cover page). Refer to Appendix 12 for the format of the supervisor approval. The coordinating supervisor should sign-off on all copies of the dissertations that are submitted, on behalf of all supervisors (if applicable).

Examination of the DissertationTwo examiners independently examine your dissertation. To ensure that a suitable external examiner is identified, we ask your supervisor(s) to nominate potential examiners with sufficient expertise and experience and with whom there is no conflict of interest. The internal examiner is selected by the Honours Examination Board, which consists of academics experienced in research training and the Honours Coordinator. The internal examiner, who will be a member of academic staff of the School, is selected based upon their research expertise and experience in examining dissertations.

On receipt of the examiners’ reports the Honours Examination Board will meet to determine your dissertation mark. Where the two examiners marks do not differ by greater than 10 marks the average of the two marks will be awarded. However, in situations where the two examiners marks differ by greater than 10 marks the Honours Examination Board will take into consideration the content of the examiners reports in making their decision. To aid in this a written response to the examiners’ reports may be requested from your principal supervisor. The Honours Examination Board will then determine whether the average mark or if a mark weighted towards the higher of the two marks should be awarded. In no circumstances will a mark lower than the average mark be awarded. In some circumstances a third

13

examiner may be required in which case an average of the three examiners marks shall be deemed to be the final mark.

Since 70% of the marks are determined by the quality of the dissertation, it is recommended that students place considerable effort in planning, constructing and presentation of the dissertation. Students should seek advice from their supervisor(s) as well as the Honours Co-ordinator to ensure they have a clear understanding of the expectations of the School.

Guidelines for the assessment of the dissertation are attached as Appendix 9.

What happens if you fail the research proposal? The SPH will allow more than one submission of the research proposal within the unit assessment processes. If a student fails the first submission of the research proposal, they will be allowed to resubmit the proposal, but the highest grade they will be able to receive for this second submission will be 60%. If they fail the second submission, they will then fail the unit and be asked to withdraw from the remaining units, population health honours program parts 1 & 2, without penalty (PUBH7411 & PUBH7412).

The honours proposal will require the signatures of supervisor(s) prior to submission, to try to ensure that the proposals are of a reasonable standard on submission.

A student who achieves a mark of 60% for their proposal unit may still be able to achieve a first class honours, if they achieve a high grade in their dissertation unit.

HONOURS GRADEStudents will receive an individual grade for the units Population Health Honours Proposal and Population Health Honours Program. Students also will receive a grade for Health Science honours (PUBH7720). The grade for Honours is composed from PUBH7401/PUBH7402 (15%) and PUBH7411/PUBH7412 (85%). The grading of your honours will be based on the grading system from the University Secretariat (see Table 1).

Table 1: Grading of Honours Dissertations

Class of Honours Grade

H12A2B H3Fail

First class HonoursUpper second class Honours (division A)Lower second class Honours (division B)Third class Honours

80+70 - 7960 - 6950 - 59 < 50

Appeal against assessmentYou have the right to place an appeal if you are not happy with any of the assessments within your Honours program. In the first instance, please discuss this matter with either the Honours Coordinator or the Head of School. Guidance for appealing against your assessment can be provided by the Student Guild and by the appeals website http://www.secretariat.uwa.edu.au/home/policies/appeals

GUIDELINES FOR HANDLING PLAGIARISMPlagiarism is defined as appropriating someone else's words or ideas without acknowledgment. There are many areas in society where plagiarism may be regarded as acceptable, for example the unacknowledged speechwriter for a politician or a Commission Report that bears the name of the Chairman and not those who actually drafted the material.

14

However, in science a much stricter view has to be adopted. New ideas and findings which are crucial to the advancement of knowledge are published in international journals under particular authors' names, and credit for some contribution in the eyes of one's peers is probably the main factor driving scientists to struggle and persist with difficult research questions (obviously curiosity, job prospects, promotion, tenure, research funds are others). It is therefore extremely important that this credit be properly assigned for personal, and in the longer term, historical reasons. Because no one works in a vacuum and there will always be earlier work in an area, we have to rigorously acknowledge previous contributions if we are to expect that in turn, we will be acknowledged in the future.

Procedures for handling a suspected case

The School is ultimately bound by University procedures on the matter of a suspected case of plagiarism, as with all other cases of misconduct in research. The procedures can be located at http://www.teachingandlearning.uwa.edu.au/tl4/for_uwa_staff/policies/student_related_policies/academic_conduct

ENDNOTE Endnote software is available to all UWA students. A copy of this software can be obtained from the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences office.

Printing account You may print or photocopy in black and white using the facilities at the School of Population Health free of charge. You will be allocated a password and your printing utilisation will be logged. Unjustified excessive use of printing facilities will result in suspension of these privileges. Colour printing is at the discretion and the responsibility of your supervisor.

15

APPENDIX 1: COMPONENTS OF THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL

Synopsis

A succinct summary of the background, the objectives and the research plan. (No more than one page1)

Literature Review

Include a brief review of the relevant literature on the topic to be studied. References should be listed in one of the standard styles. (No more than six pages.) This section provides the argument for conducting the research.

Objectives

The objectives of the project, including hypotheses to be tested where relevant. (Approximately 3/4 page)

Benefits

What are the benefits of the proposed research? (No more than one page.)

Research Plan

The research plan should be provided in sufficient detail for the assessors to have a good understanding of the methods you propose, including their appropriateness and feasibility. (No more than five pages.)

For quantitative studies, the following items should be considered for inclusion:

description of population and sample;

method of sampling;

description of data gathering methods, including definitions of variables;

draft of the questionnaire or survey instrument if applicable;

discussion of validity and reliability of data;

statistical methods; and

sample size estimation.

For qualitative studies, the following items should be considered for inclusion:

philosophical framework;

description of population and sample;

description of data collection methods;

description of sampling techniques and recruitment of participants;

draft of the research protocols;

data analysis;

discussion of rigour;

1 Please note that all page lengths quoted refer to 1.5 line spacing using Times New Roman size 12 font. 16

For dissertations that are based on critiques of the literature, you need to include detail on the source of the literature that will be reviewed, how it will be identified and how it will be reviewed.

Ethical Considerations

A section outlining the ethical considerations arising in the course of the proposed research is required. This section should address questions of consent to participate in the research, security of the data including protection of the identities of individual participants and a clear statement as to which ethical committees will have to review the research before it can commence. (No more than one page.)

In addition, unless ethical approval is currently being sought in which case a statement to that effect must be provided, a copy of the approval OR a letter from an ethics committee stating that the project does not require ethical approval must be included as an appendix.

Where the honours project is a subset of a larger project the full ethics application must be included in addition to the approval letter to enable the proposal assessors to determine whether the project falls within the boundaries of the ethical approval supplied or whether an amendment to the ethical application should be sought to adequately cover the project.

Budget

If no additional funding is required, simply write a sentence like ‘No funding is necessary’. If resources other than computing, printing and photocopying are required, an itemised budget is necessary.

Please note that the School does not provide funding for honours research projects other than the provision of a computer, workspace, photocopying, printing and general office consumables. All other expenditures, including the cost of large mailouts to study participants must be covered either by the student or their supervisor.

Statement of Participation

If a dissertation topic relates to a project in which several people are participating, you must satisfy the School that the work to be undertaken for the dissertation will be performed by the student. You should describe your role in the overall project and your role in that part of it used for your dissertation. (A brief paragraph is sufficient.)

Timetable

The aim of the timetable is to outline the logical steps of the study and to set target dates for completion of each task (eg, design of questionnaire, collection of data, analysis of data and report writing). The timetable has both short term and longer term advantages. In the short term it focuses attention on a particular task within the study. In the longer term, it provides a comprehensive statement about the project in terms of the methods to be employed.

Developing the hypotheses for the research, planning the logistics and predicting the outcomes of the study on a time scale are important and valuable steps toward establishing clearly in one’s mind the objectives of the research and the means of achieving successful results. Usually students tend to think that the study will be completed in a shorter time than is possible. A more realistic time frame can usually be determined with advice from your supervisor. (No more than one page – a Gantt chart is one way to effectively communicate your timeline.)

17

APPENDIX 2: SUBMISSION AND ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL

SCHOOL OF POPULATION HEALTHPOPULATION HEALTH HONOURS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Student: ________________________________________________________

Supervisor/s: ________________________________________________________

Approved for submission :_______________________________________________(Supervisor)

Title: ________________________________________________________

Date of Submission:________________

For assessors use only:

Recommendation:

1. Student may proceed- no changes to proposal recommended

2. Student may proceed- minor changes to proposal recommended

3. Proposal needs to be reassessed after changes requested below are incorporated

4. Proposal not suitable for Honours dissertation

18

ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSALBACHELOR OF HEALTH SCIENCE / POPULATION HEALTH HONOURS PROGRAM

The dissertation proposal is assessed by two members of the academic staff who are chosen by the Honours Co-ordinator. They will recommend whether the research be allowed to proceed without change, whether modifications should be made to the proposal before the research commences, or whether the topic is unsuitable for a dissertation. They will also provide an independent assessment of whether approval from the UWA Human Research Ethics Committee is necessary. Most proposals are approved with modification or with minor modification only.

The following questions are considered by assessors when reviewing the proposal2. Note that not all questions are relevant to all dissertations.

i. Are the objectives and benefits of the research clear, practical and achievable?

ii. Is the background set out clearly?

iii. Are the key articles within the literature of this area critically reviewed? Please note

students are asked to identify only the key articles for this proposal, but are expected to

undertake a more extensive literature review for their dissertation.

iv. Do the study questions emerge clearly?

v. Is the study population defined and described?

vi. Are the sampling design and sample size described clearly?

vii. Are the techniques for the collection of data specified?

viii. Are the plans for analysis of the data outlined?

ix. Are the sequential steps to be undertaken clearly specified?

x. Is the project feasible in terms of personnel, time, budget?

xi. Is the project adequately covered by the ethical application supplied? OR for projects

where ethics approval is yet to be sought / granted: Will the project require ethical

approval?

xii. Style and grammar – please make an overall comment if the students needs to pay more

attention in this area.

The allocation of marks are detailed over the page.

2 Based on criteria developed by the Community Health Research and Training Unit of the Department of General Practice.

19

Dissertation proposal marking guide

STUDENT NAME:

% <40 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-100

Criterion

Ver

y po

or

Inco

mpl

ete

Com

pete

nt

Soun

d

Stro

ng

Out

stan

ding

Mar

k

Background / Literature ReviewIs the background set out clearly?

Are the key articles within the literature of this area critically reviewed?

Please note students are asked to identify the only key articles for this proposal, but are expected to undertake a more extensive literature review for their dissertation.

/20

Comments

Research Question / HypothesisDo the study questions emerge clearly?

(that is, is an argument for the research clearly made)

Are the objectives and benefits of the research clear, practical and achievable?

/10

Comments

20

<40 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-100

MethodologyFor data collection -

Is the study population defined and described?

Are the sampling design and sample size described clearly?

Are the techniques for the collection of data specified? Are the variables / items to be collected described?

Are the plans for analysis of the data outlined?

Are the sequential steps to be undertaken clearly specified?

For a literature review -

Is the search strategy clearly described and systematic?

Are the key words appropriate?

Are the databases/ literature sources identified/described?

Are there criteria for exclusion/ inclusion?

Are there criteria for critical analysis of the literature?

/40

Comments

FeasibilityIs the project feasible in terms of personnel, time, budget and ethical considerations?

Note: if the project is not feasible without important changes, please tick recommendation 3

Is a detailed time frame specified?

/10

Comments

21

% <40 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-100

Style and Presentation

Organization (appropriate use of sub-

headings), succinctness and clarity of

expression.

Appropriate length (less than 10 pages max).

Correct spelling

Demonstrates appropriate use of grammar

/10

Comments

Referencing

Content is supported with reference citations

Referencing is consistent with an accepted

style

/10

Comments

Total mark /100

22

APPENDIX 3: SUPERVISOR ASSESSMENT REPORTS 1,2 AND 3 AND GUIDELINES

Outcome for reports

1, 2 or 3 N/A Poor Competent Strong Outstanding

<50% 50-59% 60-79% 80-100%

Management of own responsibilities and time

Reports 1, 2 and 3

Ability to develop a research question

Report 1 and 3

Ability in information searching and retrieval Report 1 and 3

Ability in critical evaluation of literature Reports 1, 2 and 3

Ability in research design

Reports 1and 3

Ability in implementing a research strategy

Reports 2 and 3

Ability to interpret and discuss results ( interim or full)

Reports 2 and 3

Effectively manage project as a whole

Reports 2 and 3

Ability to accept, interpret and respond to feedback

Reports 1, 2 and 3

Semester 1 enrolment

Report 1: due date 24 April, 2015 Formative

Report 2: due date 31 July, 2015 Formative

Report 3: due date 23 October, 2015 Summative

Report 3 only Final Mark ___________%23

Guidelines for supervisor assessments.

To attain an outstanding score the student should– after initial guidance, consistently work independently to a high standard. Consistently develop and implement appropriate strategies. Show an obvious commitment to producing high quality work. Show an ability to reflect on the research process and come up with their own ideas/ questions for clarification.

To attain a strong score the student should – Occasionally need assistance from the supervisor. For example, such a student may require occasional direction but once given is able to think and work independently. The student should usually produce high quality work.

To attain a competent score the student should – Be eager and committed to the task at hand but require a high level of direction. The student may only occasionally work truly independently. The student may only occasionally produce high quality work. The student has to be prompted to think independently and come up with their own ideas.

Students who attain a poor score would be consistently unable to work or think independently, consistently fail to develop and/or implement appropriate strategies and consistently lack commitment and/or the ability to meet deadlines. The majority of the student’s work would not be of an acceptable standard.

24

APPENDIX 4: ESSAY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

Honours Essay marking guide

STUDENT NAME:

% <40 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-100

Criterion

Ver

y po

or

Inco

mpl

ete

Com

pete

nt

Soun

d

Stro

ng

Out

stan

ding

Mar

k

IntroductionThe purpose of the paper is clearly defined. Appropriate background information is provided.

/15

Comments

Body Identifies the issues related to the topic

Shows detailed understanding of the issues.

Presents an argument for each issue

Orderly and cohesive argument are presented

Supports argument with relevant literature

Suggest strategies to address issues

/40

Comment

25

% <40 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-100

Conclusions/recommendations

Paper is summarised.

Implications for the research is presented

A rational conclusion is offered and supported by the material presented

/15

Comments

Style and Presentation

Organization (appropriate use of sub-heading), succinctness and clarity of expression.

Appropriate length

Correct spelling

Demonstrates appropriate use of grammar

/15

Comments

Referencing

Content is supported with reference citations

Referencing is consistent with an accepted style

/15

Comments

Total mark /100

26

APPENDIX 5: SEMINAR ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

Student Name:

% 0-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-100

CRITERION

Ver

y po

or

Inco

mpl

ete

Com

pete

nt

Soun

d

Stro

ng

Out

stan

ding

Mar

k

INTRODUCTION AND FLOW

Was the talk well introduced with appropriate background and purpose clearly stated?

Was an orderly and cohesive argument presented? /15

COMMENTS

THE SCIENTIFIC CONTENT OF THE TALK

Were the data collection/literature review methods appropriate and clearly explained?

Were the main findings presented?

Were they interpreted/discussed appropriately?

Were the limitations of the research project identified and discussed?

/30

COMMENTS

CRITERION % 0-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-100

27

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Was a rational conclusion offered and supported by the material presented?

Did the student discuss the public health implications of their study or areas for future research? /20

COMMENTS

PRESENTATION

Was the presentation well-structured with links between sections made?

Were the audio-visuals clear and easy to read?

Delivery – speaking lucidly? Did they look at the audience?

Was the seminar an appropriate length? (20 mins+10

for questions)

/20

COMMENTS

QUESTIONS

Ability to answer questions in a clear and logical manner.

Answers indicate that the student has an in-depth understanding of the research project.

/15

COMMENTS

TOTAL MARK /100

28

APPENDIX 6: POSSIBLE STRUCTURE FOR DISSERTATION INVOLVING ORIGINAL ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

The introduction section/chapter serves to introduce the domain of study, what you intend to study, and most critically, indicates the importance of studying this topic. It may contain an explanation of the dissertation topic as a problem with sub-problems; an extension of the meaning of the dissertation topic by justifying the significance of the dissertation problem in terms of its relevance to trends and issues in theory, research and practice; an introduction to themes and subjects which generally define the scope and direction of the study and the stage for later discussions on questions, issues, problems and propositions.

Literature Review

Past literature can be considered as a source of data to argue a case for and against your dissertation. You would have introduced your argument in the introduction and the literature should now be interpreted with respect to this argument. The review should focus on the hypotheses and arguments to be defended in the subsequent sections. This approach adds structure to the review, and makes it more effective in convincing the reader (i.e., other researchers) of the strength of your argument. The subsequent study and conclusions are then already placed in context. This approach has much merit.

Too often, the review of literature is seen as a place to demonstrate that you have read everything or to provide a compendium of research studies in historical order. This leads to the situation where you present a review, then at the end say, ‘now all that is wrong and so here is my study’. By the conclusion, the review has been forgotten. Such reviews would normally be criticised by examiners.

The literature review chapter should emphasise a conceptual perspective to establish an intellectual standpoint; structures and directs a review of issues; introduces themes and subjects which define the general scope and direction of later discussion on questions, issues, problems and propositions. If it is possible to take the Literature Review chapter out of the dissertation with little or no effect on the total dissertation, then the Literature Review is obviously meaningless to the dissertation. Too often, this operation is possible.

Methods

This section is typically succinct. Its aim is to describe your research methods as a considered choice from among possible alternatives. It is not the place to argue that there is only one way to study the phenomenon (there is not), or to denigrate the alternatives. You may need to justify the research methods in the light of the research demands of the dissertation problem and sub-problems, the review of ideas and practice, and detailed research questions and propositions. You will typically need to discuss the population of interest, sampling procedures, the sample, the assessment instruments, how they were administered, and the statistical analyses. Be sure that you have permission for use of any materials developed by others that are not available in the public domain. The test is whether a half-intelligent successor could duplicate your study including analyses of the data from reading the chapter on methods alone, with a reasonable prospect of duplicating your findings as well.

Results and Discussion

There is debate as to whether these chapters should be integrated or separated. In a qualitative dissertation it is usual to integrate the two, but this is not mandatory. A major consideration is that the discussion does not merely repeat the results. Accordingly, some supervisors prefer you to integrate the two, especially if the range and number of results are large and fall logically into groups that form the basis of separate chapters. Alternatively, separating the Results and Discussion may sometimes lead to a better organisation of ideas. In the discussion section you need to present and explore the meaning and significance of research material as evidence. The Discussion generally restates principal findings

29

briefly, considers whether they are likely to be valid or biased (in the case of a quantitative study), and, assuming they are valid (quantitative studies), reviews them in the light of relevant previous research.

Conclusions

This chapter allows you to provide depth and finality of meaning to the argument advanced in the dissertation. It should not be merely a summary of the previous chapter(s) and certainly not a paraphrasing of results. There is probably an excellent opportunity to integrate your findings or analysis with the previous literature that was discussed in the literature review. Rather than write the traditional ‘limitations of research’ (many of which typically should have been known before you embarked on the study), consider advancing suggestions for further research as a consequence of this study. Some academics argue that the hallmark of a good dissertation is that it raises more or better questions for further research than it answers.

Most dissertations stand or fall on the basis of this chapter. It is not an addendum, a final few words, or a summary. This is the chapter where your views, research competencies, and substantive knowledge can truly shine. The final chapter is often the hardest to write and you should spend much effort on the Conclusions.

References

Ensure that you use an appropriate style. Styles widely used in public health are the Vancouver style and the Harvard style. Consistency in formatting the citations in the text and the references is important. Include all references actually used in the dissertation. As this is not a bibliography, there is no place for other sources than those cited in the dissertation. Ensure that there is a perfect match between sources in the text and the reference list. This is a very time consuming task, and it is profitable to become very familiar with your preferred style prior to commencing your dissertation. Endnote is the computer package adopted by the School for organising bibliographic databases and it is recommended that students use it for their dissertations. It is freely available to all students.

Appendices

Include material that is not available elsewhere. The aim is to allow others to replicate your study. Appendices could include copies of questionnaires, other survey instruments and original data. For example, inclusion of survey instruments in an appendix is often a very useful record for future readers of your dissertation who wish to replicate or refine your methods. Do not include items that are clearly recoverable or retrievable by others.

30

APPENDIX 7: STRUCTURE FOR DISSERTATION INVOLVING A CRITIQUE OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

This section would be the same as for a dissertation involving the analysis of data (see Appendix 2).

Critique of the Literature

A dissertation that involves a critique of the literature will tend to come to some overall judgement regarding policy and practice, whereas in a dissertation involving analysis of data, the conclusions of the literature review will be expressed principally in terms of questions that remain unanswered.A critique of the literature requires a high level of scholarship. It is not simply a sequence of paragraphs, each describing the methods and results of a previous study. The student demonstrates scholarship by the extent of his or her search of the literature, and ability to identify and draw out similarities and differences between particular studies and their conclusions. The latter can be made easier by compiling tables that summarise related reports. A key element in the assessment of a student’s performance is the demonstration of critical capacity in terms of identifying shortcomings in methods, deductions or arguments, of the weight given to particular pieces of evidence and of suggesting novel explanations that draw pieces of the argument together or explain apparent contradictions.

Scholarship is also demonstrated by the apparent as well as the actual organisation of the material. Use of headings and sub-headings allows the student to show how the question has been approached and is important in creating in the examiner’s mind the feeling that this student knows what he or she is about. Similarly, there is a lot to be said for deliberately creating a certain momentum in the piece such that it comes to lead, almost inevitably, to the particular conclusion that the student wishes to advance. Thus, it is quite legitimate to identify certain issues in the text and then explicitly to set them aside, as it were, on the grounds that they are peripheral to the question that you wish to address.

Particularly in a long review, and in one that draws upon evidence from several different sources, such as official statistics, laboratory experiments and epidemiological studies, separate chapters may be warranted. Introduce each sub-section or chapter carefully and finish with a concluding paragraph or two that highlights the particular strands of the argument that you wish to draw from that particular source. This contributes to a sense in the reader’s mind that you have mastered the subject and that you have a clear idea of how it all fits together. It also prevents the examiner getting lost, can contribute to the clarity of your own thinking through obliging you to consider what are the most important points to be had from a particular source and adds to the general tightness of your writing by tidying up each issue before passing on to the next one.

Reference to Current Practice

In some dissertations, current practice and policy can be evaluated in light of the critique of the literature. For example, a dissertation that reviews “The Risks and Benefits of Exercise in Pregnancy” might, after reviewing the literature, include a section that described current policy and practice in Western Australia and be followed by a chapter of conclusions and guidelines for exercise in pregnancy.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter allows you to provide depth and finality of meaning to the critique of the literature. Consider advancing suggestions for further research as a consequence of your review. Some academics argue that the hallmark of a good dissertation is that it raises more or better questions for further research than it answers. This chapter is also the place to state your recommendations for policy and practice. On the basis of the evidence reviewed, you may be able to identify modifications to current practice.

References

Ensure that you use an appropriate style. Styles widely used in public health are the Vancouver style and the Harvard style. Consistency in formatting the citations in the text and the references is important.

31

Include all references actually used in the dissertation. As this is not a bibliography, there is no place for other sources than those cited in the dissertation. Ensure that there is a perfect match between sources in the text and the reference list. This is a very time consuming task, and it is profitable to become very familiar with your preferred style prior to commencing your dissertation. Endnote is the computer package adopted by the School for organising bibliographic databases and it is recommended that students use it for their dissertations.

Appendices

Include material that is not available elsewhere. The aim is to allow others to replicate your study. Appendices could include copies of questionnaires, other survey instruments and original data. For example, inclusion of survey instruments in an appendix is often a very useful record for future readers of your dissertation who wish to replicate or refine your methods. Do not include items that are clearly recoverable or retrievable by others.

32

APPENDIX 8: DISSERTATION BINDING & COVER PAGE FORMAT

Dissertation Binding Procedure for Bachelor of Health Science (Hons)

Students should prepare the final version of their dissertation in line with the guidelines contained at the

following website:

http://libguides.library.uwa.edu.au/content.php?pid=32270&sid=236091

and should pay particular attention to the preparation of the title page of their dissertation (see example

on the following page).

The student should then determine how many copies of the dissertation they require and arrange to have

them printed at their own expense. The School will pay for the permanent binding of the following

copies (student, official supervisor(s) and school). If additional copies are required the student should pay

for the binding of these copies at the Cashier’s Office in Student Administration, Hackett Hall and

submit the receipts along with the printed copies to the School.

The School will then send the copies including payment (by T Form) for the minimum required number

of copies (student, official supervisor(s) and school), plus any receipts from the student for additional

copies, to the Administrative Officer (Student Affairs), Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health

Sciences.

The Administrative Officer will then prepare the dissertation front cover page that is signed by the Sub

Dean Health Science and inserted into each copy before sending the dissertation to the Library for

binding.

Once bound, the Library returns all copies to the Faculty who then record this on a database before

returning the copies to the School for distribution to the student.

33

Format for the dissertation cover page for Bachelor of Health Science (Hons)

TITLE OF YOUR DISSERTATION

YOUR FULL NAME

This thesis is presented for the degree of Bachelor of Health Science (Honours) at The University of Western Australia

School of Population HealthFaculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences

2015

34

APPENDIX 9: ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR DISSERTATION

The University of Western AustraliaSchool of Population Health

Guidelines for Students & MarkersHonours Dissertations

General Comments

1. Honours dissertations may be an empirical investigation using quantitative or qualitative methods or a

literature review.

2. These marking matrices have been designed to be applicable to both these formats.

3. The matrices are attribute driven and have been adapted from guidelines originally prepared by the Faculty

of Health Sciences Graduate Studies, University of Sydney Committee, who in turn developed their

guidelines from the work of Biggs (1999).3

4. The attribute driven nature of this assessment has been developed to interface directly with the learning and

graduate outcomes of the Population Health Honours Program.

Markers should use common sense in deciding how rigidly to apply the criteria to each attribute.

Please follow the spirit of the assessment rather than the rigid letter.

Guidance for use of the Marking Matrices4

1. The matrices overleaf provide criteria for marking facets of a project. One matrix is devoted to each facet.

Please note that some facets may not be relevant to some projects.

2. A standard empirical dissertation would be evaluated under all five matrices. However, a literature review

would only be evaluated under matrices 1, 2, 4 & 5.

3. Markers should attach less weight to matrix 5 than to the other matrices.

4. Each matrix specifies attributes that are considered desirable for each facet of the project, together with

criteria describing various standards of accomplishment for each attribute.

5. Markers should assess each facet by first determining the standard of accomplishment of each attribute. An

overall grade for each facet should then be determined based roughly on the proportionate contribution of

each attribute to the whole.

6. Please note that the level of accomplishment does not necessarily need to have been achieved in all

attributes to receive a particular grade. However, to receive the higher grade that level of accomplishment

should have been achieved in the majority of attributes.

3Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development. 18 (1) 57-754 Matrices adapted by Dr Siobhan Hickling, Dr Rachael Moorin & Dr Jane Heyworth, based upon those Faculty of Health Sciences Graduate Studies, University of Sydney Committee

35

Facet Attribute High Distinction ( 80-100) Distinction (70-79) Credit ( 60-69) Pass (50-59) Fail (<50)

Introduction / Literature

Review

Coverage of research area

Review is comprehensive (covers all major issues).

Review is reasonably comprehensive (covers most major issues).

Review of literature identifies and defines some major issues but is not comprehensive.

Review identifies some major issues but fails to define them fully.

Review skips or skirts essential issues.

Justification for current research

Review identifies gaps in current knowledge and successfully justifies the need for the research.

Review identifies some gaps in current knowledge and generally succeeds in justifying the need for the research.

Arguments are developed within at least some major issues to justify the need for the research.

Comments generally descriptive with limited justification for the current research given.

Review shows a poor understanding of key concepts.OR Justification for research is flawed.

Support for argument justifying current research

Argument is comprehensively supported by evidence / literature.

Argument is well supported by evidence / literature.

Argument is adequately supported by evidence / literature.

Minimal support for argument.OR argument is shallow OR confused AND not fully supported by evidence / literature.

Comments are largely / entirely descriptive.OR No support presented for argument.

Critique of existing literature

Very good critique identifying strengths and limitations of current knowledge (all issues covered).

Critique is strong on most issues (covers most major issues).

Some critique is attempted but several major issues are not included.

Argument shows poor integration with minimal critique of literature.

No critique is attempted.OR Fragmented and isolated ideas with no integration.

Conceptualisation of research issues + lateral thinking

Shows clear evidence of creative or innovative conceptualisation / lateral thinking.

Some evidence of creative or innovative conceptualisation / lateral thinking.

Limited evidence of creative or innovative conceptualisation / lateral thinking.

Main focus is on concrete issues. Issues stated as fact rather than conceptualised.

No evidence of conceptualisation / lateral thinking.

Integration of separate research issues into argument

Discussion is integrated into a logical cohesive whole.

Essential content within the research domain is successfully integrated.

Some attempt at integration of the content is successfully attempted.

Integration is either minimal or confused. No attempt at integration.

36

Matrix 1

Facet Attribute High Distinction ( 80-100) Distinction (70-79) Credit ( 60-69) Pass (50-59) Fail (<50)

Research Plan /

Methods

Suitability and justification of the research plan

Choice of methods and subject selection is appropriate, properly justified and viable within the scope of the study.

Choice of methods is appropriate and in the main justified within the scope of the study.

Choice of methods is generally appropriate (one or two minor solvable flaws may exist in the research plan) and usually justified.

Choice of methods is generally appropriate but there is limited justification for their use.OR several significant but solvable flaws exist in the research plan.

Choice of methods is inappropriate.OR the plan involves clear violation of the standards of ethical research.

Description of procedures and analyses

Explanations of procedures and analyses are detailed, clear, complete, ethical and in a logical order.

Explanations of procedures and analyses are clear, ethical and in a logical order but one section is abbreviated.

Explanation of a number of sections lack detail or are abbreviated.OR the order is not clear.

Most sections lack detail.OR setting out lacks logical continuity.

Major sections are omitted entirely.OR setting out is so eccentric that the plan is incomprehensible.

Research aims addressed

All aims are comprehensively addressed by the methods.

All aims are adequately addressed by the methods.

One research aim is not fully addressed.OR some aims are addressed superficially.

Only some of the research aims are addressed by the methods.

The research plan does not address key research aims.

Awareness of limitations of the research plan

Comprehensive awareness of the methodological limitations is demonstrated.

Sound awareness of the methodological limitations is demonstrated.

Awareness of some of the limitations is demonstrated.

Minimal awareness of the limitations is demonstrated.

No awareness of the limitations is demonstrated.

37

Matrix 2

Facet Attribute High Distinction ( 80-100) Distinction (70-79) Credit ( 60-69) Pass (50-59) Fail (<50)

Results

Coverage of research aims

The results relevant to each research aim / question / hypothesis are presented logically.

The results relevant to each research aim / question / hypothesis are presented logically.

The results relevant to some (one or two) aims / questions / hypotheses are not fully dealt with.

The results relevant to several aims / questions / hypotheses are not fully dealt with.

The results relevant to key aims / questions / hypotheses are not reported.

Logical sequencing of the results

Results follow a reasoned sequence which shows reflective understanding of the research.

Logical continuity of the results is slightly unclear.OR the report is slightly pedestrian at times.

The logical continuity of the results is unclear.OR the report is pedestrian at times.

The logical continuity of the results is confused and pedestrian.

Serious inconsistencies appear in the report.OR the student clearly does not understand the research.

Accuracy of reporting

The results of all analyses are correctly reported.

One minor error is noted in the reporting of the results.

The results are in the main correctly reported (there are two or three minor errors in reporting).

Errors in reporting the results are noted in several sections.

The results presented are obviously incorrect.OR fudging / hiding of results is noted.

Overall clarity of the information presented

Presentation is clear and as succinct as possible with all relevant information presented.

The expression is occasionally unclear but all relevant information is presented.

The report is unnecessarily wordy or repetitive.OR in one or two sections relevant information is missing.

The report lacks clarity.OR in several sections information is missing.

The report is confused with significant gaps in the information presented.

Labelling of tables and figures

Labels of all tables and figures are appropriate and informative.

Tables and figures are occasionally inappropriately labelled (one or two labels are inappropriate or unclear).

Labelling of tables and figures is sometimes unclear (several labels are inappropriate or unclear).

A significant number of errors in the labelling of tables and figures are noted.

Consistent inadequate / inappropriate labelling of tables and figures.

38

Matrix 3

Facet Attribute High Distinction ( 80-100) Distinction (70-79) Credit ( 60-69) Pass (50-59) Fail (<50)

Discussion / Theoretical

Analysis

Quality of the argument put forward

Argues well and clearly integrating all issues, showing an insightful interpretation of the results.

Argues well and clearly integrating some issues, showing some insightful interpretation of the results.

Individual issues / outcomes are argued clearly with occasional insightful interpretation.

Arguments are correct / mostly correct but are limited in scope.

Major issues are not addressed in argument.OR no argument put forward merely a repeat of the results.

Integration of new and old knowledge

Creatively combines new with old concepts based on evidence.

Successfully combines new with old concepts based on evidence.

Some integration of new with old has been attempted.

Little integration of new with old evidence.

Argument distorts existing (new or old) knowledge / evidence.OR no attempt to integrate new with old.

Abstraction and reflection

High level of abstraction and reflection demonstrated.

Good level of abstraction and reflection.

Some abstraction and reflection demonstrated.

Limited abstraction and reflection demonstrated.

The student appears to lack a coherent grasp of the material.

Generalisation of information

Information is generalised beyond the immediate context appropriately and sensibly.

Information is generalised beyond the immediate context but with a touch of over or under generalisation.

Some generalisation beyond the immediate context has been attempted.

A sense of the larger context is missing.

No attempt at generalisation has been made.

Discussion of limitations and their implications

Comprehensively discusses the limitations and their implications for this research.

Discusses the limitations and their implications for this research.

Some but limited discussion of the limitations and their implications for this research.

Limited discussion of the limitations but little or no discussion of their implications for this research.

No discussion of the limitations or their implications for this research.

Recommendations for the future

Makes sound recommendations for future research.

Makes generally sound recommendations for future research.

Some discussion of recommendations for future research.

Limited discussion of recommendations for future research.

No discussion of recommendations for future research.

39

Matrix 4

Facet Attribute High Distinction ( 80-100) Distinction (70-79) Credit ( 60-69) Pass (50-59) Fail (<50)

Presentation

Structure and flow of information

Presentation is orderly, clear and aids understanding in all sections of the report.

Presentation is generally orderly and clear, aiding understanding in the majority of sections of the report.

Presentation is adequate to allow understanding.

Presentation is somewhat confusing in several sections.

It is incomprehensible.OR it is generally sloppy.

Use of sections and sub sections

Sections and sub-sections are used appropriately and are logically ordered.

Sections and sub-sections are used appropriately and are generally logically ordered.

Limited use of sections and sub-sections.OR sections and sub-sections poorly ordered.

Inadequate use of sections and sub-sections.OR sections and sub-sections not logically ordered.

Inappropriate or no use of sections and sub-sections

Expression, spelling and grammar

Expression is clear with correct use of spelling and grammar.

Expression is clear but occasional trivial spelling or grammatical errors are noted.

Sound expression but there are a number of spelling and / or grammatical errors.

Adequate expression.OR frequent spelling and / or grammatical errors noted.

Consistently poor expression.OR consistent major spelling and / or grammatical errors.

Referencing

Referencing is accurate and consistent with the same recognised style in both the body and reference list.

Referencing is accurate; however, occasional inconsistent conventions are followed.

Referencing is largely accurate and / or a number of referencing inconsistencies are noted.

Referencing is poor and / or inconsistent.

There is evidence of plagiarism.

40

Matrix 5

APPENDIX 10: CONFIRMATION OF TOPIC FORM

POPULATION HEALTH HONOURS PUBH 7401, 7402, 7411 & 7412Please submit to Assistant Professor Ian Li by 31 January 2015

Family name ________________ Other names _____________________________________

Postal address ________________________________________________ Postcode_________

Telephone _______________ Student number ___________ Majors ___________________

Supervisor 1 ________________________ Position ____________________________________

School or Workplace ______________________________________________________________

Signature _________________________________ Date _______________________

Supervisor 2 ________________________ Position ____________________________________

School or Workplace ______________________________________________________________

Signature _________________________________ Date _______________________

Dissertation Topic _______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Topic sighted by Supervisor(s): Coordinating Supervisor to sign ________________________ Date _______

School of Population Health office use only

Approved Not Approved Student notified

Approved by ________________________Title ________________________Date ____________

41

APPENDIX 11: USEFUL RESOURCES

Bell, J. (1991). Doing Your Research Project. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Cryer, P. (1996). The Research Student’s Guide to Success. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Gordis L 2004 Epidemiology Chapter 20 3rd ed. Elsevier Saunders or 2nd edition

Hart C 1998 Doing a Literature Review SAGE Publications

Lindsay D 1984 A guide to scientific writing: manual for students and research workers Melbourne :

Longman Cheshire

Minchiello, Sullivan Greenwood & Axford: Handbook for Research Methods in Health Sciences

Addison-Wesley

NH&MRC guidelines http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/r39syn.htm

Perry, C (1998) A structured approach to presenting theses, available at:

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/cperry.html

Smith R Editorial: The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers BMJ 1991; 318:1224 –

1225.

Strunk, William and White, E.B.  2000 The elements of style   Allyn & Bacon Inc  4th Ed.

Zeiger,M. 1999 Essentials of writing biomedical research papers.   McGraw Hill Companies; 2nd Ed.

42

APPENDIX 12: STUDENT DECLARATION AND SUPERVISOR SIGN-OFF

Declaration

I declare that this dissertation does not contain any material previously published by any other person except where due acknowledgement has been made. This dissertation does not contain material which has been submitted for the award of any degree or qualification in any university.

Signature________________Student nameDate

Supervisor statement

I, (full name and title) , as the coordinating supervisor, support the submission of this dissertation for examination as partial fulfilment of the requirements in the Bachelor’s of Health Science (Hons) program.

Signature___________________Coordinating supervisor’s nameDate

43