Guide to Population Health Honours 2017 - UWA · training in research and academia; it opens the way for postgraduate research and enhances opportunities of being granted a scholarship

Guide to Population Health

Honours

2017

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

Assistant Professor Ian Li

Revised January 2017

ii

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 Li

School of Population and Global Health

Tel: 6488 1295

Email: [email protected]

Fax: 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.

Acknowledgements

This guidebook and appendices were originally developed by Drs Lorna Rosenwax, Jane Heyworth,

Siobhan Hickling, Rachael Moorin and Julie Saunders.

Population Health Honours Program

iii

Table of contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ III INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 WHAT IS HONOURS? ............................................................................................................... 1 ELIGIBILITY FOR POPULATION HEALTH HONOURS ............................................................ 1 ENROLMENT INTO HONOURS ................................................................................................ 1 TASKS AND TIMELINE ............................................................................................................. 2 LEARNING OUTCOMES ........................................................................................................... 3 CHOICE OF TOPIC ................................................................................................................... 5 RESTRICTIONS ON PROJECTS SUITABLE FOR SPH HONOURS STUDENTS .................... 5 SUPERVISION ........................................................................................................................... 5 ADVICE FOR STUDENTS IN CHOOSING AND WORKING WITH A SUPERVISOR ................ 6 CHOOSING YOUR SUPERVISOR ............................................................................................ 6 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STUDENT ................................................................................... 8 ABSENCE .................................................................................................................................. 8 SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ..................................................................................................... 8 ACCOMMODATION & DATA SECURITY .................................................................................. 8 FUNDS FOR HONOURS DISSERTATION RESEARCH PROJECTS........................................ 9 HONOURS WORKSHOPS ........................................................................................................ 9 ETHICAL CLEARANCES .......................................................................................................... 9 ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................... 9 THE PROPOSAL ..................................................................................................................... 10 SUPERVISOR REPORTS ........................................................................................................ 11 ATTENDANCE AT UWA RESEARCH SEMINARS AND THE REFLECTIVE JOURNAL ......... 11 THE ESSAY ............................................................................................................................. 11 THE DISSERTATION ............................................................................................................... 12 HONOURS GRADE ................................................................................................................. 14 GUIDELINES FOR HANDLING PLAGIARISM ........................................................................ 14 ENDNOTE ................................................................................................................................ 15 PRINTING ACCOUNT ............................................................................................................. 15 APPENDIX 1: COMPONENTS OF THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL .................................. 16 APPENDIX 2: SUBMISSION AND ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE DISSERTATION

PROPOSAL ............................................................................................................................. 18 APPENDIX 3: SUPERVISOR ASSESSMENT REPORTS 1,2 AND 3 AND GUIDELINES ...... 23 APPENDIX 4: ESSAY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES ............................................................. 25 APPENDIX 5: SEMINAR ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES ......................................................... 27 APPENDIX 6: POSSIBLE STRUCTURE FOR DISSERTATION INVOLVING ORIGINAL

ANALYSIS OF DATA ............................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX 7: STRUCTURE FOR DISSERTATION INVOLVING A CRITIQUE OF THE

LITERATURE ........................................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX 8: DISSERTATION BINDING & COVER PAGE FORMAT ................................... 33 APPENDIX 9: ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR DISSERTATION....................................... 35 THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA ...................................................................... 35 SCHOOL OF POPULATION HEALTH ..................................................................................... 35 GUIDELINES FOR STUDENTS & MARKERS ......................................................................... 35 HONOURS DISSERTATIONS ................................................................................................. 35 GENERAL COMMENTS ........................................................................................................... 35 GUIDANCE FOR USE OF THE MARKING MATRICES ............................................................ 35 APPENDIX 10: CONFIRMATION OF TOPIC FORM .............................................................. 41 APPENDIX 11: USEFUL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 42 APPENDIX 12: STUDENT DECLARATION AND SUPERVISOR SIGN-OFF ......................... 43

1

Introduction

There 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 Honours

You 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 27th January

2017 if you intend to enrol in semester 1, 2017 using the form in Appendix 10. The form can be

submitted by email to the program coordinator.

2

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 2016 to January 2017

Submit completed topic confirmation form to unit co-ordinator

(see Appendix 10)

27th January 2017

Present seminar on honours proposal In week 8 of semester 1

Submit written proposal By Friday of week 8 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 10 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


3

Learning outcomes

Learning outcome Themes Teaching and learning

experiences

Assessment 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 research

Discussions with Supervisor

Workshop

SPH 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



Workshop


Proposal feedback (summative)

Dissertation (summative)

Demonstrate ability in information

literacy

Critically appraise existing scientific

literature relevant to research topic.

Scientific

investigation and

critical thinking


Workshop


Health Research Design

PUBH2205 or equivalent

Fdns of Epidemiology

PUBH2206 or equivalent

Supervisor feedback (formative and

summative)

Proposal feedback


Dissertation Seminar



Critically evaluate scientific

literature

Design and justify appropriate research

methods.

Scientific

investigation and

critical thinking



Third year research units

SPH seminars




Dissertation Seminar (formative and

summative)

Dissertation (Summative)

Describe, implement and evaluate

research methods

Implement a research strategy

Scientific

investigation and

critical thinking



SPH seminars

Supervision reports (ongoing)

(formative and summative)


summative)


Describe, implement and evaluate

research methods

Apply research techniques and

design

4

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

Workshops


SPH seminars




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 seminars



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


Ethics essay (summative) Develop positions on ethical issues

informed by scientific

understanding.

Effectively manage a project Personal development

and professional

practice


Discussions with supervisor



Effectively manage a project

Accept, interpret and respond

appropriately to feedback.

Personal development

and professional

practice

Supervisor discussions and

feedback



Proposal seminar (formative)

Written proposal (summative)

Use reflective practice

5

Choice of topic

The 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


School 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.

Supervision

Each dissertation must be supervised by at least one member of academic staff of SPGH. 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.

6

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 supervisor

One 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 supervisor

Generally, 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.

7

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SUPERVISOR

The 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 usual. 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.

8

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.

Absence If 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 Consideration If 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 Security

You 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

9

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 Projects The School does not provide funding for honours research projects other than the provision of funds for

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; and

9. How to write a paper/career directions.

Ethical Clearances

All 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_poli

cies2?f=90241

Assessment

Summary of Assessment

http://www.studentservices.uwa.edu.au/

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

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

10

Assessment Marks Due Date

(Sem 1 enrolment) Unit

Proposal Seminar Formative Week 8, sem 1 PUBH7401 & 7402

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

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

Ethics essay 20% Friday, week 11, sem 1 PUBH7401 & 7402

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

Dissertation Seminar 15% Week 13, sem 2 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 Proposal

You 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.

&

11

Supervisor reports

Throughout 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 Journal

Students 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

12

children and their family members such as siblings, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. Due

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 essay

This 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 Dissertation

Dissertations 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).

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm

13

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 Dissertation

Dissertations 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.

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 Dissertation

Two 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

14

circumstances will a mark lower than the average mark be awarded. In some circumstances a third

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 GRADE

Students 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

H1

2A

2B

H3

Fail

First class Honours

Upper second class Honours (division A)

Lower second class Honours (division B)

Third class Honours

80+

70 - 79

60 - 69

50 - 59

< 50

Appeal against assessment

You 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 PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism 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

http://www.secretariat.uwa.edu.au/home/policies/appeals

15

unacknowledged speechwriter for a politician or a Commission Report that bears the name of the

Chairman and not those who actually drafted the material.

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/academi

c_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 are allocated $50 per semester enrolled for printing and photocopying. These funds are provided via

a reimbursement process, upon production of the receipt from topping up your student card. Please

provide the receipt to the administrative officer at SPGH reception for reimbursement.

http://www.teachingandlearning.uwa.edu.au/tl4/for_uwa_staff/policies/student_related_policies/academic_conduct

http://www.teachingandlearning.uwa.edu.au/tl4/for_uwa_staff/policies/student_related_policies/academic_conduct

16

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.

17

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.)

18

APPENDIX 2: SUBMISSION AND ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL

SCHOOL OF POPULATION AND GLOBAL HEALTH

POPULATION 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

19

ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSAL

BACHELOR 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.

20

Dissertation proposal marking guide

STUDENT NAME:

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

Criterion

Ver

y p

oo

r

Inco

mp

lete

Co

mp

eten

t

So

un

d

Str

on

g

Ou

tsta

nd

ing

Ma

rk

Background / Literature Review

Is 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 / Hypothesis

Do 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

21

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

Methodology

For 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

Feasibility

Is 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

22

%

<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

23

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

Outcome for reports

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

<50% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 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 28 April, 2017 Formative

Report 2: due date 4 August, 2017 Formative

Report 3: due date 27 October, 2017 Summative

Report 3 only Final Mark ___________%

24

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.

25

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 p

oo

r

Inco

mp

lete

Co

mp

eten

t

So

un

d

Str

on

g

Ou

tsta

nd

ing

Ma

rk

Introduction

The 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

26

% <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

27

APPENDIX 5: SEMINAR ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

Student Name:

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

CRITERION

Ver

y p

oo

r

Inco

mp

lete

Co

mp

eten

t

So

un

d

Str

on

g

Ou

tsta

nd

ing

Ma

rk

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

28

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

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

29

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

30

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.

31

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.

Include all references actually used in the dissertation. As this is not a bibliography, there is no place for

32

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.

33

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.

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

34

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 Health

Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences

2015

35

APPENDIX 9: ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR DISSERTATION

The University of Western Australia

School of Population Health

Guidelines for Students & Markers

Honours 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) 57-75 4 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

36

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


literature.

Minimal support for

argument.

OR argument is shallow OR

confused AND not fully


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


thinking.

Main focus is on concrete

issues. Issues stated as fact

rather than conceptualised.

No evidence of


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.

Matrix 1

37


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.


generally appropriate (one or

two minor solvable flaws

may exist in the research

plan) and usually justified.


generally appropriate but

there is limited justification

for their use.

OR several significant but

solvable flaws exist in the

research plan.


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


No awareness of the


Matrix 2

38


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.

Matrix 3

39


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


Limited abstraction and


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


research.

Limited discussion of the

limitations but little or no

discussion of their


research.

No discussion of the

limitations or their


research.

Recommendations

for the future

Makes sound

recommendations for future

research.

Makes generally sound


research.

Some discussion of


research.

Limited discussion of


research.

No discussion of


research.

Matrix 4

40


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.

Matrix 5

41

APPENDIX 10: CONFIRMATION OF TOPIC FORM

POPULATION HEALTH HONOURS PUBH 7401, 7402, 7411 & 7412

Please 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 ____________

42

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.

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/r39syn.htm

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

43

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 name

Date

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 name

Date

Documents

Guide to Population Health Honours 2017 - UWA · training in research and academia; it opens the way for postgraduate research and enhances opportunities of being granted a scholarship