Dissertation Guidelines

(1)

Dissertation Guidelines

Master in Public Health

(2)

© All rights reserved 2008. The Dissertation Guide, in all its parts, guidelines, examples, layouts, appendices, technical notes, forms, images and any additional material, is a copyright of Laureate Online Education B.V.

The Dissertation Module Guidelines

For Students and Dissertation Advisors

For the Master of Public Health (MPH) Programme

Contributors: Director of Online Studies; Faculty Managers and Lead Faculty

Version 5 Jan 2012

To be found in the MPH Research Support Class and in the Centre for Student Success

http://success.ohecampus.com/index.php?mod=dcp&act=navigationindex&navigationi d=3696

Version Control Table

File name, version & publication date

Date of revisions

Nature of revisions Revisions Editor

Dissertation Guidelines MPH Version 4

Jan 2010

Dec 2011 -Ethics Process Update (consolidates current practice)

-Month 5 and 7 Progress Markers (consolidates current practice)

-Guide to writing the dissertation update (consolidates current practice)

-Copyright advice changes

-Word limit guide and penalties update i.e. limit of a total of 10 text boxes and/or tables in the main body of the dissertation and proportional penalties related to the extent to which the dissertation exceeds the word limit (to apply to dissertations submitted from September 2012)

Sue Jones Director of Online Studies Dissertation Guidelines MPH Integrated Version 5 Jan 2012

(3)

A dissertation should generate new knowledge (or new applications of existing knowledge). This can include secondary data analysis, but not normally routine audit projects. Systematic Reviews or Meta Analyses are not recommended unless the student is completing the MPH specialising in epidemiology.

Overall structure

From November 2010 students beginning the MPH programme will be required to take five core modules with the fifth core module chosen dependent on their choice of methodology for the dissertation. The dissertation is started once the student has successfully completed eight modules. Prior to the November 2010 intake students had been strongly recommended to complete a 5th core module. As a result students have to decide early on that they either want to utilise qualitative or quantitative methods within their dissertation (UoL does not permit mixed methods on this programme). Information on „getting started‟ with the dissertation i.e. how to identify a research topic and draft an initial proposal is made available during the 2nd and 3rd modules. Before students begin the dissertation module they are expected to have completed a self study, short course called „Dissertation Readiness‟. This course is a series of „locked steps‟ tested through multiple choice questions which aim to provide an important introduction to the basics: how to select a subject; how to carry out literature searches; the overall dissertation process; ethical issues etc.

The MPH dissertation itself lasts for 9 months: 2 months within the „Research Support‟ module (that ends with the production of the final outline proposal); then another 6 months prior to submission of the final draft. Month 9, the final month, has to include a minimum of 2 weeks for the Dissertation Advisor (DA) to review the final draft, and 2 weeks for the student to make any final changes prior to submission.

As within the other MPH modules there is a procedure for applying for extensions on the basis of serious and unforeseen circumstances that have significantly interfered with the student‟s planned timeline. Requirements for ethics applications over and above the one month allowed will automatically be supported for extensions on application. All applications have to be made via the Student Support Manager (SSM) and have the support of the student‟s

(6)

DA. The details of the extensions application process can be found in Appendix B.

The student will be enrolled into two dissertation classes: one with their DA (as a one-to-one class) which starts after the 4th week (known as the „Advisor Class‟ in Blackboard); and the other with the General Dissertation Instructor (GDI), and other students enrolling to the same dissertation cohort (known in Blackboard as the „Research Support Class‟). The Research Support Class will be facilitated by a GDI who will ensure that students are able to work through the research support materials. Students have the option to continue using the Research Support Class as a common meeting place for their cohort (to provide support to each other and/or exchange ideas and views) all the way through their dissertation.

By the end of the first 2 weeks of the Dissertation students will have identified their dissertation topic, research question and methodology. By the end of the fourth week they will have been assigned a Dissertation Advisor (DA). At this point the student is enrolled into the second class with their DA. For the final 4 weeks of this initial stage, the student works in both the Research Support Class with their fellow students and the GDI whilst also working with their DA revising and finalising the outline dissertation proposal.

The Student and their Dissertation Advisor (DA)

Throughout the dissertation process, the input from the DA will vary according to the needs of the student. However, it is important that the student maintains steady progress and, at the beginning of the process, agrees their personal timetable so that both the student and the DA are clear what is expected of them and when. A „guide‟ timetable runs through the structure of the dissertation process. However this is open to minor modification depending on the nature of the student‟s dissertation subject and design.

The DA and the student should both read through the ‘Working Relationship Summary’ found at Appendix A. This will need to be adapted to reflect each DA-student relationship but is proposed as the basis of a „signed agreement‟ that both the student and the DA commit to. This should be completed at the outset and posted in the classroom under its own thread for future reference.

The initial task for the DA is to help the student to refine their Outline Dissertation Proposal. The University of Liverpool sees the outline proposal as a key stage in the dissertation process, and has specific requirements that the proposal must address (see Appendix D: Outline Dissertation Proposal Checklist). The reason for this early emphasis is to ensure a strong foundation on which the rest of the dissertation can smoothly develop. The DA‟s role in developing the Outline Dissertation Proposal is to offer advice and feedback on the required elements, prior to formal review and „sign off‟ by the Faculty Manager.

(7)

As the dissertation progresses, the DA is expected to discuss with the student their ideas, read and comment on early well-crafted drafts of each chapter and then, when the whole dissertation is drafted, comment on all chapters in relation to the overall work. It is important that the student arranges with their DA well in advance the stages at which s/he can allocate time to read and discuss draft(s), otherwise a great deal of time may be wasted for both parties.

Students should not expect their DA to comment on more than the Outline Dissertation Proposal and two drafts of the dissertation (as complete drafts or their component chapters). The student should themselves check the accuracy of all drafts for typography, grammar, spelling, formatting, referencing and data presentation before asking for comments on them. It is the student‟s responsibility to correct any such errors. The examiners pay particular attention to such problems in presentation.

Authorship and potential future publications

Although ultimately the dissertation is the student‟s own work, the DA is likely to contribute considerable time and expertise to the development and writing of the dissertation. If the student subsequently submits the material for publication, for example, as an article in an academic journal, they should not omit any authors who fulfil the international authorship criteria1:

“substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data”, and

“drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content”, and

“final approval of the version to be published”

Ahead of starting to draft such an article, the student should at least discuss with the DA whether his/her contribution to the dissertation merits authorship of any intended article and whether anyone else qualifies as a potential author.

The final responsibility for the quality of the dissertation rests with the student, but the DA takes responsibility for providing sound advice along the way. The student is also responsible for keeping in touch with the DA. As already mentioned, the „working relationship summary‟ should be discussed and agreed during stage one of the dissertation as this outlines the responsibilities of both the student and the DA. The DA is responsible for updating the academic team about student progress, particularly where the student is falling behind schedule

If a student is unhappy about any aspect of his/her supervision, s/he should consult their Student Support Manager as soon as possible. It should be noted that a fee will be levied if you want to change your DA after the Outline

1_{International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts} Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 2006. (Last accessed 28-11-2011 at:

(8)

Proposal has been approved. You will need to submit a request to the Student Support Manager if you change DA at this stage. The SSM will discuss this request with your Dissertation Advisor and the Director of Online Studies, and a decision will be made whether the change you have requested can be made. Every effort will be made to ensure that the student-DA match works well.

Outside help with language skills

The writing of the Dissertation, as well as the work presented within it, should be the student‟s own. It is acceptable to ask your DA to point out unclear sentences, problematic paragraph structure, etc, when reading a draft chapter, but it is unacceptable to give the text to a professional editor for corrections. The University of Liverpool will treat the use of a professional editor as unauthorized collusion.

Even the most minor assistance with any aspect of the writing up of the Dissertation should be clearly acknowledged in the dissertation

acknowledgements. It is not permitted under any circumstances to write the dissertation in another language and have it translated into English.

Plagiarism, Copyright, Confidentiality and Publishing Citations and Plagiarism

The importance of proper citation and referencing in all stages of the

dissertation cannot be stressed enough. The dissertation must adhere to the same requirements for proper citation that were applicable in the other modules of the programme. Students must use the Harvard system as explained later in this document and as promoted throughout the programme.

Proper credit should be given to other sources in the proposal and then continued throughout each stage of the dissertation. Correct citation must be an integral part of the final thesis.

The final draft of the dissertation will be submitted to the DA by the student so that the DA can do a final review. At this point the draft is submitted via the first of two submission points in Blackboard that make use of the Turnitin

application. This checks the draft for similarity with other sources and reports on the percentage of matching found. Any content not correctly cited and referenced will be identified and investigated. Failure to adhere to the citation rules, which are simple to follow, will most likely be considered as plagiarism and have severe consequences for the student and their successful

completion of the degree.

The final dissertation is submitted via the second submission point in Blackboard so that the first and second assessors can access it for

assessment. The DA does not mark their own student‟s dissertation. The assessors are obliged to inform the academic department of any suspected plagiarism or collusion found during the assessment. An explanation will be requested from the student and this explanation, together with other evidence

(9)

taken from analysis of the dissertation, will be brought to the Board of Examiners when it considers the assessment of the dissertation. The Board has the power to decide, in the light of the evidence presented, the final grade to be recorded for the work, and also to consider whether any further action is necessary. Thus great care should be exercised when posting the final

dissertation document that it is the version the student wishes to be considered for assessment.

For more information please see the „Policy on Plagiarism and Unauthorised Collusion‟ in the Student Handbook.

Copyright and Confidentiality

What is the copyright status of a student‟s dissertation, and to whom does it belong?

Traditionally all academic work completed at a University will be „owned‟ by the University. Usually it is beneficial for them to share the credit with the student and, even though they technically don't have to, most Universities choose to do this. Due to most of the online students being active working professionals, often using their companies/organisations as case studies, the ownership of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) becomes a little more complicated.

The University‟s official stance is:

'Except in the case of students supported by outside bodies, where specific provisions relating to intellectual property are embodied in the conditions of the support, all postgraduate students are required to agree to assign to the university all their rights to intellectual property arising from their studies or research at the university... the University has a policy of sharing profits arising... with the staff and students concerned'

The most relevant section here is 'except in the case of students supported by

outside bodies', as most Laureate students are employed and so supported

externally. However in addition it is believed that:

1. They (students) are the effective copyright holders of their Dissertation. Other than placing a copy in the library, the University/Laureate will not publish their work without their consent.

2. Any published work arising out of a Dissertation project should normally be viewed as collaboration between the student and the supervisor, and each has an obligation to discuss this with the other, and to agree on authorship and/or acknowledgements as appropriate. The University has no rights over any such publication, but it is

expected that it will include an acknowledgement that the work was carried out as part of the student's studies with the University/Laureate. 3. In the case where a student's Dissertation project is sponsored by their employer, or relates directly to their employment, the University will not make any claim on the IPR of the work.

(10)

4. In any other case, the student is required to inform Laureate if any commercial exploitation of work carried out for the Dissertation is planned. The University/Laureate will not normally assert its claim to IPR, however, unless there is a reasonable argument that the

Dissertation supervisor should share in the benefits of any exploitation. Probably the most important factor to consider is that it is not in the interests of the University to forcibly claim rights over a piece of work or information. At most the University will request acknowledgement that the work was carried out as part of the student‟s studies with the University.

Confidentiality: Students who need to keep their dissertation confidential should include the following sentence on the same page that they make their declaration about plagiarism:

“This dissertation contains material that is confidential and/or commercially

sensitive. It is included here on the understanding that this will not be revealed to any person not involved in the assessment process.”

Inserting this statement will also preclude the dissertation from being placed in the Dissertation Library.

Publishing and Posting

All documents supporting the progress of the study during the dissertation process (proposals, monthly reports and interim dissertation drafts), are internal documents submitted to the University for assessment. They should thus be regarded as coursework assignments which belong to the

UoL/Laureate rather than to the student. In particular, the dissertation is an internal document until after final assessment, at which point it becomes public.

Methodology (Steps, Schedule and Duration)

The overall duration of the dissertation is 9 calendar months from initiation (Research Support classroom allocation) to submission, beginning with a concentrated 8 week/2 month block of participation with other students within the same dissertation cohort.

This section provides guidance on the key steps to be taken by the student in the development, task and eventual submission of the dissertation. There are three parts to this section. Part One provides a summary of the formal

requirements (the „must do‟s‟) in terms of the administrative processes and key milestones that govern the whole process. Part Two sets out a series of („should do‟) key stages that the student is strongly advised to adopt in order to ensure a suitably structured approach to the whole process. Part Three provides a diagrammatic summary of Parts One and Two in the form of a proposed timeline from initiation to completion.

(11)

PART ONE: Formal Requirements (The ‘must do’s)

Please note that students cannot take a break between modules for a period longer than 16 weeks without special authorization. This means the student has approximately four months (i.e. 16 weeks) after finishing the last module to start the Dissertation.

As stated earlier, since March 2010 students have been required to complete a short, self study course (called Dissertation Readiness) prior to starting the dissertation. As a result of this course, students should have at least chosen a topic for their dissertation, a draft research question and the methodology (quantitative or qualitative) they are going to use.

Dissertation Class Rooms

(Research Support and Advisor Classes in Blackboard)

The Dissertation begins with the 8 week „Research Support‟ phase, with other students beginning their MPH dissertation at the same time. This takes place in the research support class.

Four weeks into the Research Support phase the student will have confirmed their dissertation subject, will be assigned a DA and have access to their DA classroom.

Please note: A Dissertation Advisor will normally be assigned rather than chosen by the student. This is because we have a limited number of DAs and it is important to get the correct match to the student‟s study topic as well as the right balance and number of Dissertation students for the DA. However the student will have the opportunity to let the GDI know if the DA is

unacceptable to them before match is confirmed.

All the correspondence between the student and the DA must be conducted through the individual classroom that they share with their DA. Once in the classroom the student will be reminded to re-post any important prior messages e.g. the Academic Honesty Declaration, which is part of the Dissertation Materials Folder.

DAs and students are encouraged to supplement their contact by using the free SKYPE technology or telephone. However, if such conversations occur outside of the classroom, we ask that the student makes a brief summary of their understanding of what was discussed in a dated post in the most

appropriate thread in the DA classroom. This is essential for audit purposes. At the end of the initial 8 week research support phase, the student will have submitted their outline proposal via their DA to the Outline Proposal Review Panel. See below for further details.

Participation in the research support class has a „pass to progress‟

requirement. This means the student must participate adequately (as judged by the General Dissertation Instructor), in order to progress to the next phase of the dissertation.

(12)

Submission of Outline Proposal

The Outline Dissertation Proposal development will take place within both the research support class and the advisor class with the DA. Submission of the Outline Dissertation Proposal to the student‟s DA will take place within the DA Classroom.

Once the DA believes that the Outline Dissertation Proposal has reached a stage that will gain academic approval, the DA submits the proposal to the Review Panel.

This Review Panel is made up of DAs, the GDI and overseen by the Faculty Manager responsible for either quantitative or qualitative dissertations, depending on the methodology chosen by the student. Feedback will be provided via the DA within 10 days. The outcome of that feedback will be one of three possibilities:

1. Approval

2. Approval subject to minor amendments that can be signed off by the DA. In which case the Review Panel do not need to see the proposal again

3. Not approved and requires further work, with resubmission to the Review Panel once amended

It is important for the DA and the student to view the Review Panel process as an opportunity for learning and academic rigour. Often when two people are engaged in developing the proposal they can become so focused on the subject that they can miss certain essential elements. Hence the Review Panel can offer a fresh and objective perspective on the proposal. It is worth noting that most initial submissions of the proposal are returned requiring some further revisions. If this occurs, clear feedback is provided pointing out how the Outline Dissertation Proposal needs to be improved. Once the Proposal has been approved, the student may begin the

development of their dissertation.

Outline proposals must be submitted by the end of Month 2 (a date is set for each cohort. See the „Personal Planner‟ in the research support class, under „Module Materials‟), and should be approved by the end of Month 3 at the latest. If the student has failed to either submit or gain approval by the third month, their SSM will refer them to the Academic Progress Committee.

If the outline proposal is not approved by the end of Month 4 the student will fail the dissertation. Obviously, if there are mitigating circumstances the student must inform their SSM who will advise the student of the process to gain an extension. This should be done - as in other modules - at the earliest opportunity. For further details, see Appendix B.

(13)

Ethics Applications

Once the Outline Dissertation Proposal is approved all students are required to apply for ethics approval by completing a UoL/Laureate ethics application form. In addition, the student may need to apply locally for ethics approval (see below).

All the most up-to-date Ethics Application information can be found in the Modules Materials section of the Research Support Classroom.

The International Online Research Ethics Committee at UoL (IOREC). has a specific Ethics Application form which should be submitted in the first instance to the DA in the Advisor Classroom. The form should be submitted together with any required elements, such as Participant Information; Consent Forms; Data Collection Tools; Interview Question Schedules etc. The DA is able to review the ethics application and give approval for studies that fall within their delegated authority i.e. for secondary and primary studies that involve non vulnerable participants and non sensitive topics. If the dissertation involves vulnerable populations or sensitive subject areas then the DA can recommend that the student submits the application by email to the International Online Research Ethics Committee See Appendix E for more detail about the UoL Ethics Application process.

If the student has a local national, area or organisation ethics process they will also have to make application there. Normally this is done in parallel with the UoL/Laureate ethics application. However both processes are required and the application is evaluated independently of any local ethics approval by the UoL/Laureate Ethics committee.

Throughout the preparation for the dissertation, the student is advised to steer away from ethically sensitive research topics/design. This advice is given with the intention of minimising the time taken to complete the dissertation i.e. within the 9 month period. However, if the student chooses to select an ethically sensitive topic and/or design following consideration of this advice, the process for gaining ethics approval both via the UoL/Laureate and the local ethics approval process is likely to take longer, often many months longer. Although applications for extensions to Dissertation deadlines, based on documented waiting time for ethical approval, will be favourably reviewed by the Academic Progress Committee, the student is still strongly advised to avoid such ethically sensitive topics/research designs for the MPH

dissertation.

Monthly Status Reports

From the start of project until the submission of the final version of the

dissertation, the student must submit a brief, monthly status report to the DA via the DA Classroom. This monthly status report should briefly detail

(14)

changes to plans, revisions to the timeline, and any other pertinent information that applies to the progress of the dissertation.

The monthly status report should be submitted on or before the 28th day of each month. Keeping to deadlines and making regular progress reports are aspects of professionalism that are expected when completing the

dissertation.

Special emphasis is placed on month 5 and 7 progress reports which the student must complete within the „myohecampus‟ system. As a guide, the

following elements should have been completed by the end of months 5 and 7 of the standard 9 month dissertation process:

By the end of Month 5 the following elements should have been completed:

Student/DA agreement completed and posted ( by the end of month 2) Proposal approved (by the end of month 4, at the very latest)

UoL ethics approval Local ethics approval

Introduction, Literature Search and Review draft reviewed by DA, revisions made and posted

Research question, Aims & Objectives and Epistemology draft reviewed by DA, revisions made and posted.

Pilot tested with revisions in instrument and/or process described Data collected

Data/ transcripts checked and approved by DA

By the end of Month 7 the following elements should have been completed:

All those elements from Month 5 (above) plus;

Method chapter draft reviewed by DA, revisions made by the student and re-posted

Results chapter draft reviewed by DA, revisions made by the student and re-posted

Target date confirmed by student to DA for whole draft dissertation submission to Turnitin (which should be at least 4 weeks before the final submission date so that the DA can review and the student can amend)

Dialogue between Student and DA

The target turnaround time for the DA‟s response to questions posed by the student is within four days, and within ten days for feedback on draft chapters. Past experience has shown that work should proceed in well-planned steps and intermediate results should be shown to the DA. Hence a key early activity for the student is the completion of their own research timetable: specifying milestones agreed and signed off with their DA. As has been already emphasised, all discussion should be carried out/recorded in the DA classroom. This is very important as the quality of teaching and student effort

(15)

is regularly monitored by the Director of Online Studies, and subsequently by the University of Liverpool Monitors and the External Examiners.

Chapter Drafts

Submission of initial chapter drafts should be included in the planning of any dissertation. This will allow the student to gain feedback on each completed chapter before submitting a final full draft of the dissertation to the DA for comments.

The student should submit a final full draft (this is highly recommended), and should allow at least one month for this phase to allow for submission to the DA, 10 days turnaround for feedback and time then for the student to make any suggested changes prior to the final dissertation submission date. This draft should be submitted through one of the two submission points in the DA classroom in order to check the thesis through Turnitin.

If the final draft dissertation is submitted late, the DA is very likely to recommend that the student takes advantage of an extra month (the tenth month) to make the final submission. However, this will result in a maximum grade of C being awarded.

Submission of final thesis

Submission of the final dissertation document (i.e. thesis) should be made on or before the dissertation deadline. The completed dissertation should be posted through the second submission point in the DA Classroom. The student must also click the appropriate „button‟ to declare the thesis is

submitted in „myohecampus‟. This must be completed for the dissertation to be graded. Please be aware that failure to complete this notification of submission could lead to a penalty for late submission.

Once the final submission has been made, the student should monitor their DA class for four weeks after receipt to address any questions that may arise as part of the grading process.

Grading will continue for 4-6 weeks after submission, with a first and second assessor marking independently. If the two assessors‟ marks differ by more than 10% then they are required to share the details of their assessment and reach a final, agreed mark. If they are unable to agree a mark at this point, then one of the dissertation Faculty Managers will be asked to act as a third assessor. The third assessor‟s mark will be final. If the two assessors‟ marks are less than 10% apart, then an average of the two marks is taken as the final mark.

The dissertation mark is not revealed to the student until it has been approved by the Board of Examiners. Students‟ dissertations can only go forward to the Board of Examiners if study fees have been paid. Boards of Examiners are held three times a year: February, May and October for graduation

ceremonies in July and December.

(16)

If the dissertation has been assessed as a „fail‟ then the student will receive detailed feedback and will need to decide whether to retake the dissertation. For student retaking their dissertation usually three to six calendar months are required depending on the nature of the specified revisions. A resubmission will be overseen by the Academic Progress Committee and will be recorded as the second and final submission. A „fail‟ grade following this second submission will be final and there will be no opportunity for the student to resubmit or retake their dissertation.

PART TWO: Recommended Key Stages (‘Should Do’s’)

The dissertation project carries 60 credit points, the same weight as four regular modules. Writing a dissertation is a creative process, and it does not progress along a straight path. As a guide, the student is expected to spend about 600 hours of work on the dissertation.

One of the most important requirements is that the dissertation must be

completed as scheduled. The deadline is 9 calendar months from the date the cohort classroom was initiated. The student will be penalized for late

submission (grade capped at “C”) and will Fail if they are more than one month late. Extensions will not normally be granted, except in clearly unexpected circumstances beyond a student‟s control, such as waiting for ethical approval over and above the expected 4 weeks and/or in cases of real personal/ family/ medical/work emergencies. As stated earlier, the case for an extension will need to be made in writing with supporting documentation. Such requests should be sent to the Student Support Manager (with the support of the DA gained and posted within the DA class), who will approach the Director of Online Studies for approval via the Academic Progress

Committee (see Appendix B).

The dissertation calls for less online attendance than regular taught modules. There might be periods of intensive interaction, such as when writing

chapters, when applying for ethical approval, starting the field work etc. Nevertheless, it is strongly suggested that the student keeps an ongoing dialogue with their DA along with the required participation within the cohort Dissertation Class – using both to gain feedback, ask questions or simply swap experiences and discuss progress. Feedback from previous students suggests that the timetable and maintaining regular contact with the DA and other dissertation students is really important to successful completion within the time available.

Timings can vary greatly depending on the nature of the design, the need for ethical approval and/or the practical requirements for data collection. Once data are collected, again timing will vary but those stated are to try to help the student plan realistically in order that they complete to schedule.

It is strongly recommended that the student adopts the following framework as a template to ensure a suitably structured approach to tackling the key stages required for successful completion and subsequent submission of the

(17)

dissertation.

Months 1 and 2 (the first 8 weeks): This phase is probably the most interactive and structured of the entire 9 months. Students do some quick introductions, exchange of bios etc and then work through the Research Support materials. These materials aim to provide students with a reminder of key information and support, clarification of expectations and a review of their proposed subject area. The focus here is the further development of their dissertation proposal.

The last 4 weeks of this phase is focused on testing out a proposal and methods with other students in a similar format to a Discussion Question (DQ). Based on their chosen subject area, students will be assigned a DA (and thus their Advisor Class) through which all communication with their DA will take place. This runs in parallel with the Research Support class for the rest of the dissertation.

It is expected that the outline proposal will be submitted to the student‟s DA at the start of the 7th week at the latest following detailed feedback from the GDI. Students will then work intensively with their DA for two weeks in order to finalise the Outline Dissertation Proposal and submit it to the Review Panel. By the end of month 3, the Proposal should be approved. If resubmission to the Review Panel is required then obviously more time will be taken at this stage. However the proposal has to be approved by the end of month 4 unless, due to unforeseen circumstances, an extension has been applied for and granted by the Academic Progress Committee (APC). If the student is unable to obtain proposal approval by the end of month 4 they will formally fail the dissertation.

Months 3 and 4. Once the outline proposal has been approved the ethics application can be submitted. The ethics approval process is detailed in Appendix E. The process takes approximately four weeks: up to two weeks for development of the application (which will require many of the practical elements of the research; participant information, consent forms, etc.) and up to two weeks waiting for ethical approval. Whilst the main output of Month 3/4 is submission for ethical approval, it is expected that the student will complete their own dissertation timetable and sign this off with their DA while awaiting the outcome of their ethical application. In addition the student will be expected to be further refining their study design and methodology and also planning their field work/ collection of data in anticipation of gaining ethical approval. If the student has a local national, area or organisation ethics process the student will also have to make application there. Normally this is done in parallel with the UoL/Laureate ethics application. The student cannot begin collection of data until ethical approval has been authorised: by the DA following UoL/Laureate ethics application approval and, where

necessary, also posting local ethics approval.

(18)

key output is the submission of the draft Introductory chapter to the DA (allow 2 weeks for the DA to read and comment).

Month 5 The key outputs at this stage are the completion of field work and the beginnings of the detailed analysis of data.

Month 6 The key outputs are a summary of methods used and results achieved – Methods and Results chapter drafts to DA (allow 2 weeks for the DA to read and comment)

Month 7 Detailed review of results and discussion of implications. Draft Discussion chapter to DA at end of month for feedback (allow 2 weeks for DA to read and comment).

Month 8 Feedback from DA on Discussion chapter and complete revisions where required.

The submitted dissertation must be written according to the guidance given below („The structure of your dissertation‟). The DA must receive notice that the student intends to submit the draft dissertation as planned at least 2 weeks before submitting the draft: second week of Month 8 at the latest.

Month 9 A complete draft should be send to the Dissertation Advisor at the start of Month 9 at the latest, so that there will be ample time for corrections and revisions i.e. four weeks prior to the agreed submission date (end of Month 9). The final submission will be evaluated by two assessors as stated earlier.

Throughout all stages, as stated in the previous sections of this guide, the student and DA should review the due date for each stage of the process, and this should be reported in the key progress reports. Students should be aware that the ability to keep to agreed deadlines is a key skill for the research practitioner.

Each dissertation activity should be carried out in full consultation with the DA, who should be willing to discuss submitted section drafts before the final delivery date. Students should have their DA approve submitted sections before proceeding to the next section during the writing of the dissertation. It is recommended that each stage should also meet the satisfaction of the DA before the next stage is started.

It is extremely important that a final draft of the dissertation be submitted to the DA before the final dissertation submission itself. The DA will comment in detail only once on a single, full final draft prior to the final submission of the dissertation.

(19)

PART THREE – Diagrammatic Summary (The ‘musts and the shoulds’) Week/ Month Research Support Class Monthly status Reports to DA classroom and to the VC Research Support Class – general activity DA Class – specific activity

Required output (by end of week). Note that you may submit earlier than the stipulated date with the approval of your DA Month 1 Week 1 Bios/introductions. Review of the Dissertation Guidelines document and participation in discussions Formalizing methodology choice and research question. NA Commence work on introduction and literature review by reviewing appropriate literature based on topic. This review will help focus the research question.

Nil Commence work on

Outline Proposal (see Proposal template in Module Materials for guidance) Submission of tentative research question and literature search strategies. Week 2 Thinking about your research: epistemology and theoretical positioning in research methodology. Post the 2 DQs and participate in the discussions

NA Confirm you are in the right methodological cohort class i.e. quant or qual. Work on Outline Proposal thorough epistemological approach- to be submitted to Cohort class at end of Week 2

Nil Submit 1st draft

outline proposal through

epistemological approach.

Week 3 Post the 1 DQ and participate in the discussion Focus on the methods section of the proposal NA Work on methods section of your proposal

Nil Submit methods

section, if completed for review

Week 4 Continue to work on methods and complete the remaining sections of the proposal NA Work on submitting completed proposal draft Nil DA assigned Submit completed draft proposal for review by GDI

Month 2

Week 5

Discussion on outline proposal with help of peers and GDI

NA Revise first draft following feedback from DA. Post your draft Outline Proposal to the Discussion Board by Sat midnight Work with DA on proposal – ensure that you provide your DA with the feedback from the GDI

DA - student agreement „signed off‟

DA should provide you with formal feedback on your proposal within one week of you posting your proposal in the DA classroom

(20)

Week 6 Discussion on UoL and local ethics

NA Draft proposals to be submitted to the GDI via Turnitin on the first day of the Week (Thursday). Development of outline proposal with help of DA Finalise DA - student agreement

Week 7 Review and assess a completed dissertation NA Peer support on development of proposal if required. Development of outline proposal with help of DA Week 8 Discussion on

how you would like to support each other over the next 7 months of the dissertation; how the DA classroom/ process is going NA Peer support on development of proposal if required. Post latest version of proposal by Saturday. Development of outline proposal with help of DA

End of week 8 -DA seeks approval of proposal via the Review Panel to provide feedback within 10 days

Month 3 Nil NA Further

development of proposal if required/Complet e ethics application/Plan field work Work on draft Introductory Chapter DA provides feedback to student on proposal Submit ethics application as early as possible Submit improved questions to DA

Month 4 Nil NA Commence data collection and initial analysis ONLY after ethics application approval

Plan field work Regular communication with DA Ethics application approval is expected by this time Draft Introductory chapter to DA Month 5 Nil On or before 28th day of the month Data collection commenced Regular communication with DA Month 6 Nil On or before 28th day of the month Data collection and initial analysis Draft methodology and results chapters Check analysis and results/initial discussions re. Implications Draft methodology and results chapters Regular communication with DA Submit draft methodology and results chapters to DA Month 7 Nil On or before 28th day of the month Check analysis and results/initial discussions re. implications Draft discussion Chapter Regular communication with DA

(21)

Month 8 Nil On or before 28th day of the month Check out implications and interpretation of results Pull sections together and prepare final draft Regular communication with DA At beginning of month submit draft discussion Chapter to DA AND advise DA that you will be submitting your draft by the start of Month 9.

Month 9 Nil NA DA to review final draft Student to make final changes Start of Month 9 – final draft to DA Final dissertation must be submitted by 28th of the month

Getting Started - preparation for research

Please note: This is written directly for the student as a step by step guide

The topic to be investigated

You should choose an area of study according to your own interests, but you must be able to demonstrate its relevance to public health. As you will devote so much time to your dissertation, it is essential that you choose a topic that you will enjoy and find interesting. It is also important to consider the practical aspects of the proposed study. Some topics may simply not be researchable because the necessary skills, procedures and techniques are not feasible, available, or ethically acceptable, or would take too long or involve too many people. In addition, you should consider the value of the proposed study in terms of providing new and meaningful insights. This may contribute to your own career development and may provide material for a peer-reviewed publication or preliminary work for a higher research degree. Looking at potential dissertation titles might help you to choose your topic.

Gaining ethical approval is a „must do‟ if the research involves human beings, human tissue or human data. In order to obtain ethical approval quickly and without complications, it is important to choose a non-sensitive focus for your dissertation. The list of proposed dissertation categories and titles aims to guide you towards a non-contentious topic in order that your application for ethical approval can be looked at via the „expedited‟ rather than the full committee route.

Students are required to share their dissertation ideas within their dissertation group in order to receive feedback on their ideas from the group and DA prior to submitting a formal outline proposal of no more than two pages to the DA, who once satisfied with the proposal will forward it to the DOS for final approval.

(22)

The outline-proposal should be no more than 2 pages in length and the format should be as follows:

1. Title

2. Introduction and background (1 paragraph) 3. Summary of relevant literature (1 paragraph) 4. Research question

5. Study aim and objectives; and assumptions made about the nature of knowledge

6. Methods (including: summary of study design; data collection and setting; ethical aspects/expertise available/data protection/confidentiality issues) 7. Research outcomes (1 paragraph)

8. Costs

9. Draft timetable 10. Key references

The appendix of your dissertation MUST include the final, approved, outline proposal. Please use the Outline Proposal Checklist to aid successful completion – which can be found in the Module Materials (in the Blackboard classrooms) and is included here as Appendix D

Reviewing the background research

It is essential to review the relevant literature to inform your hypothesis, research question/study aim(s). This will provide you with a sound theoretical basis, will ensure that your proposed topic has merit, and will suggest alternative methods and techniques for conducting your research. A comprehensive review of previously published research should inform your approach and prevent time-wasting.

There are a number of practical tips when searching through the literature: Use the collections of the University of Liverpool Online Library to access e-journals, e-books and databases. These are available through the University portal http://portal.liv.ac.uk and the Online Library home page

http://www.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus/

The Library contains important databases for your research such as OVID (Medline), Global Health, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source, ScienceDirect and Web of Knowledge.

If you are not sure how to access this information, ask the online librarian:

[email protected]. Discuss your key-words and search strategy with your DA, together with likely sources of „grey literature‟. Do not forget to search sentinel articles for useful references and to check whether their key-words help you to refine your search strategy.

There are also some search tips on the Library web site that might help

(23)

Consult relevant reference books.

Regularly review current journals for articles that may be relevant.

Do not forget the opportunity provided by local libraries for obtaining information.

Stating your aim and objectives/research question/assumptions

It is essential that you clarify the aim of your research. You need to develop a clear idea of what you are hoping to investigate and how this is to be done before you start your research. It might be helpful to start by trying to articulate the overall research question that you are interested in tackling. The study aim(s) and objectives are crucial to your proposal. The study aim should describe the overall purpose of the project and the objectives should outline specific elements (not methods). Keep the objectives concise and restricted in number. Long lists of objectives result in (or from) confusion and do not get done! Often the objectives can take quite a while to get right, so do not be surprised or disheartened by the iterative process involved in designing them.

If your study involves testing a hypothesis, define your hypothesis clearly and ask yourself whether the hypothesis is testable and whether the proposed study is feasible. Be aware that how you frame your research question and, for example, whether or not you have a hypothesis to test will be guided by certain assumptions that you make about the nature of „knowledge‟/‟the truth‟ and possible study design. You need to note what assumptions underpin your work and clarify the implications for your research approach and findings. In the dissertation, this can take the form of several concise statements (with a clear link to the reflective parts of the discussion), or be a lengthier reflective discourse integrated in the relevant sections, as appropriate.

Formulating your research question

It is usually crucial to identify a clear research question before starting the study. The research question is simply the question you intend your study to answer, in part or in full. It should follow on from the previous research questions identified by the studies in your literature review and should provide an overview for the study aim and objectives that you have identified. You should try to articulate one overall research question.

Deciding how you will carry out your research

Once you have carried out a thorough literature search, you must then formulate a plan for conducting the research. First, consider the main research design, e.g. whether the research involves, for example, a descriptive, analytical, or intervention-type „quantitative‟ study design, a „qualitative‟ approach, a „mixed methods‟ approach, etc. For surveys involving questionnaires, you need to plan the instrument very carefully and this can take a lot of time, especially as you should allow time for piloting. Discuss and obtain advice from your DA as soon as possible and keep testing out your new ideas.

(24)

Having formulated your study design, you then need to establish how the data are to be analysed, e.g. using appropriate statistical tests, clarifying the philosophy underpinning any analysis of data collected by a „qualitative‟ approach. Try to avoid complicated research designs or studies that involve long or indeterminate waiting-times to receive data from (especially multiple) routine data sources. If you need epidemiological, statistical, social science, health economics, management advice, etc. seek such expert advice at the

design stage. Do not wait until you start your analysis.

Once you have a clear idea in your mind of the design and methods of data collection and analysis, you should consider how many participants/cases will be included in your study. This will be influenced by the feasibility given the overall time involved (30 patients with a particular injury may be difficult to locate within a limited time-span, for example) and the requirements of your particular study. You may already have a clear idea of the numbers you require from previously published literature, but you must demonstrate a clear rationale, other than just feasibility, for deciding on that particular sample size and type. If in doubt, take advice.

Do not forget to consider the cost of various components including, for example: travel, telephone, stationery, survey forms, etc.

Constructing a research timetable

It is essential in planning research that you specify the estimated length of time required at each stage. Obviously, you cannot be exact in your time predictions because all sorts of unforeseen circumstances may cause delays. Obtaining ethics approval, for example, can take more than a few weeks and can involve numerous changes to your original intentions. Hence, it is better to take this into account right at the beginning in formulating a non-senstive focus otherwise if a contentious subject ethically be pessimistic rather than optimistic in predicting the research timetable. A timetable enables you to plan the project, and focus on its essential components. Remember that wishful thinking at this stage can lead to serious stress later

Obtaining ethics approval

Complying with legal and ethics guidance and specific local or other codes of practice regarding use of all personal data is a requirement of the University of Liverpool. Any research study that involves access to human participants, human tissue or human data will require ethical approval of some sort.

Depending on which country you are carrying out the dissertation will determine the necessary ethical approval. Please do check this out thoroughly. This also applies to the organisation within which your study is carried out: do they have a specific ethical approval procedure?

Any research study that involves access to UK NHS patients, staff or patients‟ records, health service facilities, for example, will require the approval of an NHS local research ethics committee (there may be other non-local research ethics committee approval requirements depending on your topic of study).

(25)

You should also refer to the NHS Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) guidance available on the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) website: http://www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk (last accessed 28-11-2011). (The NRES was formed from the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) and Research Ethics Committees (RECs) in England.) If you do need to submit your proposal for such approval, attention to the detail/format that such committees require is essential to avoid unnecessary delay. Ethics committees usually meet no more than monthly, which has implications if the committee returns your research proposal for amendments and resubmission. You must highlight the ethical considerations/processes addressed in your study in the Methods section of your dissertation, discuss

these in the Discussion section, and submit written evidence on the decision

for approval (or waiving of such approval) to proceed with the study in an appendix. You must also ensure that you have written permission from any organisation within which (or on behalf of which) you are carrying out your research, and any permissions for reproducing/using materials, as appropriate (also including these in an appendix).

Any research that does not require the permission of an UK NHS Local Research Ethics Committee will need to seek University of

Liverpool/Laureate ethics approval and any other local ethics approval process – both are required for online students

In order to access the appropriate forms for expedited approval please go to the Ethics Application and templates in the „Module Materials‟ section of the research support (cohort) classroom

Expedited Review via the International Online Research Ethics Committee (IOREC) which is a sub-committee of the Central UoL Research Ethics Committee:

Expedited review may be considered:

Where it is judged that the potential risk of harm to participants and others affected by the proposed research is minimal.

Where the research is undertaken as part of Undergraduate or

Postgraduate training and follows a previously approved generic study plan.

All dissertation students will be required to submit a completed IOREC ethics application form to their DA in the first instance. The DA will assess the application against specific criteria to judge if the application fulfils all the required aspects of ethical conduct and also to decide whether as a DA they can provide ethics approval. If they decide that the application requires further scrutiny, the DA will send the application and their review to the IOREC and ask this committee to assess and decide whether to approve. This usually takes about 2-3 weeks. If the IOREC consider that a full review is required, the student will be informed of the procedure.

(26)

Full Review via the UoL Committee on Research Ethics (CORE):

Applications for full review are considered where expedited conditions have not been met.

The full review process involves one lead reviewer who will discuss the application at Committee.

The Ethics Review form that DAs complete will aid the DA and IOREC decide whether an application requires full committee review. This route can take some time and is not recommended for student research. Hence the initial guidance to students is to choose a non sensitive topic in the first instance.

Where ethics approval has been sought from a Local Research Ethics Committee in the country or organisation in which the student is carrying out the research, this must be noted on the ethical approval application form and a copy of the ethics approval will be required before the research can commence. Please post a copy in the DA classroom in the first instance. The important thing to remember is that research ethics, whatever your dissertation topic or method, is an excellent way to prepare for the practicalities of your research. The application will require you to think through each stage of your study and will also require submission of such documents as your participant information and you consent form, for example.

The structure of your dissertation

The dissertation structure provided below is to be used as an example. It does not need to be followed exactly but is recommended:

Abstract: 300 words or less but not too much less. Does it include a brief introduction or background of the problem, study aim/research question, objectives, methods, results and conclusion? Is all of the information specific and clear, especially the results? The formatting of the abstract does matter: subsections should be subtitled.

Introduction/Background and Public Health Context: This should be brief and include an introduction to the setting, the topic, the programme/project (if needed), definition of terms if they are critical to understanding the content of the study. At the end of these 2-3 pages, the reader should have evidence of why the topic is important for public health and the purpose of the study. Literature Review Search Strategies: This should be specific enough for replication. Which databases were included, using which terms? How many articles were produced from each search and why were articles kept or discarded? What other sources of data were sought? What did they produce? There should be a rationale for inclusion/exclusion of sources.

Is the range of sources sufficient? The range of sources used in the literature review should include those directly related to the topic, setting, and

(27)

method. If there are limited direct links to articles (e.g., no qualitative studies on the topic or specific to the setting), then there should be an attempt made to include material from related studies or settings. For example, there are no specific studies on HIV attitudes of miners in Sierra Leone, but there are studies on this topic in other African countries. There should be some indications that studies have been sought that match the methods (qualitative or quantitative) as well as the topic and setting and if none, this should be indicated.

Has the literature been explored adequately, critically analyzed, sources summarized and referenced correctly? Each of the indentified articles/material from the search should be reviewed. This can be done by summarising each article separately or by grouping and summarising material by themes (all articles covering a specific topic are included). All sources should be correctly referenced. There should be an effort to critically evaluate the literature. This can be done for each source, or at the end of the section in a summary. The critical analysis should include a summary of what is known, what is not known, where there are inconsistencies, the strengths and limitations of the sources, and how this relates to the current study. There should be a „rationale‟ stated for the current study and how it relates to public health.

Aim, objectives, and research question. There should be a stated research question (for both qualitative and quantitative dissertations) and the words that start the question should reflect the chosen methodology. The aim should start with “To…” and include … “in order to…” Strong verbs should be used for the aim and objectives. If the study is qualitative, the words should reflect qualitative methodology (e.g., to explore, to understand, to describe). Objectives should use strong verbs and start with “To….” The list of objectives should not be long (4 or 5 is ideal). There should be one objective on literature reviews, one on outcomes (e.g., inform policy etc.), and the other two or three should reflect the intent and methods of the study (e.g., To explore the attitudes of teens on smoking behaviour through individual in-depth interviews; To examine clinic data (2005-2007) through statistical analysis in order to assess demographic characteristics of patients.) The AIM, RQ, and objectives should follow directly from the literature review, logically flow and link to each other.

Epistemological Approach. The epistemological approach should be stated and referenced. How and why the approach applies to the study should be present. There should be a brief discussion of how the research will use the approach. If qualitative, the student should briefly discuss positionality. A more thorough discussion should occur in the Discussion section. If

quantitative, then the positivistic approach should be discussed and not

simply stated. For both methods, assumptions inherent in the approach taken should be described and justified with potential disadvantages and advantages noted.

(28)

Methods: The methods section should include the following subsections and

each section should be justified (with references) and have a description

and rationale.

Design: The student should discuss whether the study is qualitative or

quantitative and the research design. Why the choice of methods was chosen should be discussed.

Setting: If not covered earlier, or in enough detail, this section should include

the setting at an appropriate level of detail (country, region/district, city, and specifically where the study will occur). The country and city should always be included along with the site for the research. If there is more than one site, each site should be described and justified. Visuals may be useful (map of the country and location of the study). Details about the study site should indicate key factors for its choice (e.g., urban/rural).

Sampling Approach; Sample Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria; Sample Size;

Sample Recruitment: This section should show how the sample was

selected, who was selected (inclusion/exclusion), how many were selected from each group, and how the respondents were recruited. Specific details and a discussion of each item should be present. Sample demographics of respondents should be included here not in the results section. For

quantitative, sample calculations should be present.

Data Collection Methods: The student should describe each method for data

collection, the development of the data collection tools, pilot-testing and revisions/results. The correct language based on methodology should be present (e.g., survey for quantitative, question/interview guide for qualitative). Questions should be present in the text; a survey should be included in the appendices, but a discussion of the main topic areas should occur in the text. Students should try to use validated questionnaires where possible, and if not possible should pilot test a small number for face validity. If the planned data collection methods have not produced enough data (as stated in the in the proposal), there must be evidence that the student attempted alternative strategies to gain the information.

Ethical Considerations: There should be a thorough discussion of the ethics

approval processes, as the UoL-Laureate process is compulsory for all dissertations it needs only to be mentioned. Any local ethics approval and/or permission letters should be included in the appendices. How confidentiality, anonymity, and written informed consent were gained and ensured should be discussed. If there were issues with vulnerable populations, literacy, language, outside assistance (translators) etc. these considerations should be discussed in detail. If a student is using secondary data they should include information about the previous ethics approvals gained for the primary study data collection, but their ethics approval should be for permission to reanalyze the data on a secondary basis.

Analytical Approach: A description of the analytical method should be

described and justified. For qualitative, this might be a step-by-step process for coding data, a description of the analytical approach, etc. A discussion of transcription process and translations (if appropriate). An index of the key themes should be provided (usually no more than 5) and reference to a more complete table (themes and subthemes) in the appendices. For quantitative, this would be a step-by-step analysis plan on how the student approached the data (e.g., cleaning, descriptive analysis, etc.); a discussion of the statistical

Dissertation Guidelines