Schulze B?ing, A. and Wong, C., 2012. Brownfield residential development: what happens to the most deprived neighbourhoods in England?. Urban Studies, 49(14), pp.2989-3008.
Dixon, T., Otsuka, N. and Abe, H., 2011. Critical success factors in urban brownfield regeneration: an analysis of ?hardcore? sites in Manchester and Osaka during the economic recession (2009?10). Environment and Planning A, 43(4), pp.961-980.
1,Compare and analyze these two articles in terms of research methods
2,Outline design for your own research project
Specific requirements, examples are shown in the files. Pay attention to the requirementsTHE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES & PLANNING
Module No: TRP 6404
Title: Research Methods
Credit Value: 15
Level: M
Semester: Autumn 2021
Module Coordinator: Steve Connelly ([email protected])
ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Number and type of assessments
The single assessment for this module is: a critical essay, which includes an outline of dissertation research topic and design. (2,500 words (?10%) plus references)
In this assessment you will analyse comparatively two papers in your field of interest, in terms of their underlying assumptions, research design and methods, and contribution to the field of knowledge. Based on this you will present a rationale for and outline description of a research design for your own dissertation project.
Guidance on contents
The assessment has two closely linked parts, carrying equal weight. The aim is to compare two papers in terms of their research design, and demonstrate your understanding through applying it to a preliminary design for your own research project.
Part 1)Comparison of two papers (approximately ? of the word count)
The overall emphasis is upon a critical analysis of the papers. By critical we mean that you must not simply describe what the authors of the papers did, but explain the contribution to knowledge and understanding the paper make in terms of the consequences of the design/methodological choices made by the authors, and evaluate those choices in terms of their effects on generating valid knowledge in ethical ways. You must draw comparisons across the papers: what are the similarities and differences in the approach to the research topic and in the findings? What are the consequences of these, and what does this tell us about the different research designs?
Suggested pairs of paper will be provided, relevant to a number of different topic areas for each Masters programme, but you may also select your own. A list of suitable journals is provided to guide this selection, but you may go outside these if you have good reasons. It is strongly recommended that if you wish to select your own papers, and in particular if you go beyond this journal list, then you check your choice with the module coordinator. Two criteria must be fulfilled:
a) the papers must have original empirical content, reporting on a piece of research described in sufficient detail to enable the comparison to be made (so entirely theoretical pieces or review articles are not suitable); and
b) the papers must contrast with each other in their approach to research, again in order to enable a meaningful comparison. The nature of the contrast may be in the nature of the data collected (e.g. quantitative/qualitative, visual/textual etc.), the overall design (e.g. survey/case study, primary/secondary sources etc. ), or underlying philosophy (positivist/interpretivist/realist). In part this will depend on your Masters programme, but you should also be guided by your interests in choosing methods for your dissertation.
You?must?cover all?the?following?elements?in?your?essay:
Aims and contribution
You should identify the overall research question the papers were addressing, and where relevant (which will almost always be the case) the real world problem which the research is supposed to help address. You must concisely summarise the key findings and contributions to knowledge of the two papers. Remember, contributions to knowledge may be empirical (knowledge about the world) or theoretical/conceptual (new ways of understanding the world) or both. Were the questions clear? Did they answer them?
Underlying assumptions
What kinds of knowledge were they seeking? What underlying assumptions are there about the nature of the world and how it can be known? (This may be about what kinds of ?thing? they were researching, or you may wish to delve deeper into the papers? underlying research philosophy. The latter is not, however, a requirement.)
Research?design
What?are?the?key?features?of?the?research?designs? (What overall strategy was adopted? What types of data were collected, and how were these collected and analysed?) How well are these linked to the research aims and the assumptions being made?
Conclusion
Are the results valid and generalisable? (Can you tell this from the write-up they provide?) Was the research ethical? How do the answers to these questions relate to the design choices which were made, and how do they compare between the two papers? Overall, do the authors make a good case for their research in the way they write it up? Do they provide enough, and good enough, explanation and discussion to allow you to make a judgement about the quality of the research?
Referencing
While you must cite all the sources you draw upon in the normal academic manner (using the Harvard method) you do not need to continually cite the two papers under review in the normal way, though some way to clearly identify each is necessary. )You might, for instance, simply refer to them by the author?s name(s), or as ?paper A? and ?paper B?.
Part 2)Outline design for your own research project (approximately ? of the word count.)
This will set out a broad rationale for the research (setting it in the context of a real world issue and the need for knowledge to address this), the overall aim (perhaps, though not necessarily) framed as an overarching research question, and the basics of the research design: extensive vs intensive, nature of data to be collected and analysed and the methods to be used to do this. Each of these needs to be justified, drawing where appropriate on lessons learned from comparing the papers in part (1).
Criteria for assessment
?The extent and clarity of coverage of all the elements set out in the detailed guidance above
?The?extent?and quality of?critical?analysis?of?the?research?design and methods.
?The?ability?to?integrate?and?compare?the?two papers within your analysis.
?The ability to outline a plausible and coherent research proposal
?The ability to explicitly apply the understanding shown in part (1) to the proposal design (part 2).
?Presentation,?use?of?English?and?accurate?referencing.
Support for the assessment?
The module is structured around a set of tasks which will lead you through the development of research design, and at each step this will be explained through critical analysis of a research paper. Together these components will give you the knowledge and skills needed for the assessment. Each live session will also provide opportunity for asking questions, and there will be a Discussion Board open on Blackboard throughout the module where you can post questions and receive swift responses form the teaching team.
Submission
Your assessment should be submitted via Turnitin/Blackboard, no paper copy is required.
All the information you require on submission and assessment is in the Postgraduate Handbook, principally in the sections Submission of Assessed Work and Modules. See: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/usp/currentstudents/postgraduate/pgthandbook
?Deadlines
Please refer to the separate information on submission dates:
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/usp/currentstudents/postgraduate/submission/dates#tab02
?Extensions/Extenuating Circumstances
Any required extensions must be requested by using the online Extension Request/Extenuating Circumstances form. This can be accessed via this link – https://forms.gle/SVa9o7DumJKb8dGRA – and also from your Blackboard Hub.? Extensions should be requested prior to the submission deadline.??
Feedback
Feedback will be given in the form of written comments via Turnitin, which will indicate the main strengths of the work, highlight ways in which performance can be improved, and explain the mark awarded. You will receive your feedback within 3 weeks of the submission deadline for each assessment. If, due to unforeseen circumstances (such as staff illness), it is not possible to return work within this timescale, all students will be notified.
