MSc in Dental Disciplines/CoMD-Ulster University

Research Protocol Guidance

Module: Research Methodology II module (10 and 20 credits variants)

Assignment Level: Level 7

Assignment type: Summative assessment

Protocol assignment: A Research Protocol is required as part of the summative assessment for Research Methodology II module. It is an essential expansion for your
research proposal and represents a planning-type document that marks the start of the process of your research. The Research Protocol should be approximately 2000
words excluding figures, tables, references, and appendices. The assessment of your Protocol follows the marking guidelines for level 7 illustrated in the table below. The
document should be submitted with completed Ethics Review Form. Failure to do so can result in an inevitable failure.

Your protocol should be clear and easy to understand. The protocol overall purpose is to enable you to present a scientific argument for your study, to think through your
methodology and to anticipate the outcomes (negative and positive). It is important that you follow the below subheadings:

1. Introduction: to justify the project (rationale) and finish it with statement of the Research Question (RQ).
2. Literature Review (for primary research) OR Background (for secondary research): summarised literature review for primary research OR background of the topic
for secondary research (reviews).
3. Methodology: sufficient details to enable an assessment of the feasibility of the project and its ethical acceptability
4. Possible/Expected Outcomes: This section should explain the benefits that will be achieved from your research and how to avoid things go wrong. This section
should be subdivided into feasibility, contingency and impact assessment subheadings. The feasibility subsection should be subdivided into cost analysis, time
management, practicality and ethics considerations.
5. Reference list
6. Appendices: ethics approval letter, Supervision agreement and a minimum of one supervision record.

1
Marking Descriptors: your protocol will be assessed according to the descriptors below:
Section Fail (<45%)
Introduction • No clear introduction
(10%) • Unclear research question.
• Poor communication of ideas.
• No use of referencing.
Literature Review • Very limited.
OR Background • Little evidence of reading.
(30%) • Unsubstantiated generalisation
of research evidence.
• Poor range of reference sources.
• Poor degree of critical appraisal.
• Lack of attempt to analyse or
evaluate literature.
Methodology • Inappropriate and unclear
(30%) methodology and / or not
correctly applied in practice.
• Lack of appreciation of research
methodology.
Possible Outcomes • Inadequate / incomplete
(15%) discussion of possible outcomes.
• Only covered positive
predictions.
• No evidence of impact of the
research in the context of
current knowledge.
Presentation • Poor structure & meaning.
& • Poor referencing with many
Research skills. errors.
(15%) • Inconsistencies or omissions in
Marginal Fail (45-49%)
• Some evidence of introducing the
project
• Research question justified by
some limited analysis
• Basic in range or depth
• Limited range of reference sources
• Evidence of critical appraisal, but
in a limited or descriptive manner.
• Some use of evidence to support
comments, but not consistent in
interpretation.
• Clearly outlined method of data
collection but not wholly correctly
applied in practice.
• Lack of detail.
• Basic appreciation of research
methods.
• Adequate predictions of possible
outcomes both positive and
negative.
• Simple feasibility
• Limited evidence of the
prospective value of the research
in the context of current
knowledge.
• Borderline quality of presentation
• Clear meaning but unclear
language.
• Competent referencing but with
Pass (50-59%)
• Sound introduction to project.
• Research question stated with
some justification.
• Demonstrates a sound
understanding of topic area.
• Moderate range and depth
appropriate to topic.
• Evidence of wider reading.
• Evidence of linking literature into
study with some criticism
apparent.
• Emergent appreciation of
alternatives.
• Clearly outlined method with a
degree of reflection.
• Methods generally correctly
applied.
• Shows a good appreciation of
research methodology.
• Good predictions of possible
outcomes both positive and
negative.
• Some feasibility assessment.
• Generally, shows the potential
impact of the research in the
context of current knowledge.
• Satisfactory quality of
presentation.
• Clarity of meaning & language.
• Sound referencing with minor
2
Commendation (60-69%)
• Focused introduction to the
project
• Good understanding of the topic
area.
• Evidence informed rationale &
justification to RQ.
• Good range and depth
appropriate to topic.
• Evidence of logical & analytical
thinking.
• Literature integrated well with
sound degree of critical review.
• Accurate communication of
ideas and concepts.
• Focussed method of data
collection with critical reflection
on design.
• Demonstrates competency in
research methodology.
• Evidence of considered
reliability and validity.
• Very good predictions of
possible outcomes both positive
and negative.
• Sound feasibility analysis with
mitigation.
• Clearly shown impact of the
research in the context of
current knowledge.
• Sound presentation quality.
• Clear meaning and fluent
language.
• Full, appropriate & correct use
Distinction (70%+)
• Clear identification of the focus of
project and a logical original RQ
posed
• Excellent evidence informed rational
& justification of the RQ.
• Extensive range and depth of
sources judiciously selected.
• Thorough critical review of
literature, well integrated into study.
• Clear knowledge of limitations of
literature base.
• Exploration of other ideas and
contradictions.
• Demonstrates originality in the
choice or development of methods.
• Provides evidence of understanding
of complex methods.
• Evidence of high-quality analysis
including reliability & validity.
• Excellent predictions of possible
outcomes both positive and negative
• Clearly shown impact of the
research in the context of current
knowledge.
• Evidence of extensive personal
research & evaluation.
• Excellent presentation quality.
• Articulate & fluent.
• Precise, full & appropriate
referencing.
 referencing. errors and inconsistencies. errors or inconsistencies. of the Harvard system. • Consistent & correct use of Harvard
• Academic conventions used • Academic conventions largely • Appropriate academic skills. • Sound uses of academic system.
weakly or ignored. evident. • Correct use of Harvard system. convention. • Consistent & accurate use of
• Incorrect use of Harvard • Limited use of Harvard system. • Evidence of research ability under • Successful demonstration of academic convention.
referencing. • Some evidence of research ability limited guidance & supervision. research skills with minimal • Successful demonstration of
• No evidence of required but with substantial guidance & • Able to identify problems and plan guidance & supervision. research skills with a significant
research skills. supervision. mitigation. • Takes initiative in identifying degree of autonomy.
problems and planning • Identification of problems and
mitigation. effective planning of mitigation
using a range of resources.