Partial Report 1 (CW1) You are required to write up a partial qualitative research report (i.e.

psychology project and need the explanation and answer to help me learn. Partial Report 1 (CW1) You are required to write up a partial qualitative research report (i.e. Results and Discussion section ONLY) based on data provided to you using one of the analytic approaches covered in the lectures. The report must include the following sections: abstract, introduction, method, findings, discussion, references. Further guidance on what each of these sections should include will be provided to you in the coursework brief. See attached files below to complete the report. Requirements: RESEARCH METHODS IN PSYCHOLOGY 2 (20 credits) COURSEWORK: QUALITATIVE REPORT Submission: Submit to Turnitin. Feedback: 14 working days from the submission date. COURSEWORK 1: QUALITATIVE (PARTIAL) REPORT CW1 Assignment Brief The coursework component comprises up to 10 credits of the module (i.e., 50% weighting of overall module marks). You are required to write-up a 1500 word (+/-10%) partial qualitative report on the topic of friendship using either, Thematic Analysis, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis or Discourse Analysis. Pre-existing interview data on the topic made available via the Higher Education Academy (HEA) is provided. You can choose to analyze one of the following transcripts: Alexander Trevor Deborah Guidelines on Structure and Content To structure your report, you are advised to incorporate the following sections: Title Create an appropriate title for your report. Analysis (500 words – excluding data extracts): This refers to the write up of the analysis. Present each theme/discourse by relevant sub-headings, using illustrative data extracts from the transcript and provide interpretative commentary. Refer to published examples of research using your chosen method of analysis (TA/IPA/DA) for examples of the format this should follow. Discussion (1000 words): Summarize the findings. Critically discuss the theoretical meaning of the findings. Critically evaluate the findings relevant to theory, literature and the chosen methodological approach adopted. Highlight limitations and areas for future research. References: APA 7th Edition. Submission Information and Feedback Your submitted coursework will only be accepted via the Turnitin CW1 link on the module web page. Results will be available 14 working days after the due date and feedback will be accessible through gradebook which can be accessed through the Turnitin icon on the module web page. You can submit multiple drafts approaching the deadline, and your last draft prior to the deadline will count as your final submission. Final submissions matched at over 30% by Turnitin will be subject to further investigation for plagiarism/collusion/poor scholarly writing (see student handbook for links to the University policy on plagiarism). Assignments submitted after the due date will be marked at 0. Extensions should be sought 1 week before the coursework due date (for more information on this, see the module essentials/course handbook). Please remember that we mark anonymously so ONLY put your SID on your report, and NOT your name. Marking Criteria See appendix. What support and advice is available to me? There will be lead lectures and workshops on TA, IPA and DA in weeks 2 – 8. You will also have a pre-recorded lecture on how to write-up qualitative research. Use of the CW discussion forum (i.e. Padlet) to post questions/comments. Qualitative analysis is a time-consuming process. You are advised to start your analysis as early as it is possible by reading around your chosen interview/planned method. Recommended Reading The reading list below is recommended to help you with your analysis only. To research the topic of friendship, you are advised to conduct a literature search (e.g., library catalogue, Locate) Crowley, C. (2010). Writing up the qualitative methods research report. In M. Forrester (Ed.) Doing Qualitative Research in Psychology: A practical guide. London: Sage. Frost, N. (Ed.) (2011). Qualitative research methods. In psychology combining core approaches. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Smith, JA., Flowers, P. and Larkin M. (2009) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. London: Sage. Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill/Open University Press. Academic dishonesty Academic dishonesty covers any attempt by a student to gain unfair advantage (e.g. extra marks) for her/himself, or for another student, by unauthorized means. Examples of such dishonesty include collusion, deceit, plagiarism and re-presentation of coursework. Collusion includes the conscious collaboration, without official approval, between two or more students, or between a student(s) and another person, in the preparation and production of work which is then submitted as individual work. In cases where one (or more) student has copied from another, both (all) students involved may be penalized. Deceit includes the misrepresentation or non-disclosure of relevant information, including the failure to disclose any cases of work being submitted for assessment which has been or will be used for other academic purposes. Plagiarism is the act of using other people's words, images etc. as if they were your own. In order to make clear to readers the distinction between your words, images etc. and the work of others, it is essential that you reference your work accurately, (see APA 7th Edition guide for further information), thereby avoiding a charge of plagiarism. It is always obvious when a student has copied words from a text without referencing, as there is a change of writing style each time. If you do not reference your work correctly, it will come across as if you have 'stolen' words or ideas from other sources. Module leaders use computer software to check students’ work for potential plagiarism or improper citation. Self-Plagiarism is the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of your own work without acknowledging that you are doing so or without citing the original work, and without the written authorization of the module leader. Re-presentation is the submission of work presented previously or simultaneously for assessment at this or any other institution. The maximum penalty for a proven case of academic dishonesty is expulsion from the University. Breakdown of write-up section by section To structure your report, you are advised to incorporate the following sections: Title Create an appropriate title for your report. The title should give an clear indication of the discussion to be followed in the main body, as well as mentioning the mode of analysis. Analysis (500 words – excluding data extracts): This refers to the write up of the analysis. Present each theme/discourse by relevant sub-headings, using illustrative data extracts from the transcript and provide interpretative commentary. Always start with a visual outline of the themes and sub-themes (no need to include codes/patterns). If you are unsure what this looks like, ‘Google’ Thematic map or Discursive summary. Discuss each theme to explain how it relates to the research question using illustrative extract(s) as separate sub-headings. Then discuss the subthemes under the themes in the same way (you may find that you do not have subthemes for certain theme – this is fine! You would move onto discussing the next theme and their subthemes. Interpret and comment on what it means for the topic/research question. Key points There needs to be a clear narrative to explain how your work is answering the research question. Always go back to the research question and state how your analysis/commentary answers the research question. Critically evaluate all the materials that are presented. For example, what does the transcript say about the meaning of friendship for that participant? Is it backed by literature? Are there any contradictions? etc. You can use additional theories/research to support your argument – you are a scholar and a psychologist at this point trying to best understand the topic as discussed by your participant. Always focus on the point being made, quotes to support that point, followed by interpretative commentary and explanation of what it means for the topic/research question (point-quote-explanation; PQE or set-up-quote-commentary; SQC). Discussion (1000 words): Summarise the findings. Critically discuss the theoretical meaning of the findings. Critically evaluate the findings relevant to theory, literature and the chosen methodological approach adopted. Highlight limitations and areas for future research. Provide a brief summary of the key themes/subthemes/discursive repertoire. This is to remind the reader of the key findings of the results section. Critically discuss if the findings support past literature/theory and what does it mean for the topic (be careful not to repeat what you have said in the analysis; this should be a concise summary). Critically discuss the strengths and limitations of the study. Present your key implications for the study and advancement to the field of friendship. Indicate directions for future research – this should be based on your findings/limitations of the study. References: APA 7th Edition. The data for CW1 can be accessed at the link below. Use the left hand column to switch to a different interviewee (e,g,., Deborah) https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/tqrmul-dataset-teaching-resources-deborah%E2%80%99s-interview The TQRMUL Dataset Teaching Resources: User Guide The TQRMUL dataset consists of video and audio recordings, together with transcripts, of five interviews with undergraduate students on the subject of friendship. The resources are intended to support the teaching of qualitative research methods, and are free to download and use. The interviews The interviews were conducted in Spring 2008 at Liverpool John Moores University by Tanya Corker and Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson, and were conducted specifically for the purpose of being made available online as a teaching resource. As a tutor on their course, Alasdair was known to his interviewees, whereas Tanya, a research assistant, was not. The aim of the interviews was to enable participants to talk at length about their experiences of friendships. The interviews lasted for between 46 and 63 minutes (Mean = 54 minutes). The interview schedule can be downloaded separately from the website. More details are presented in Table 1 below (pseudonyms are used for the interviewees). Table 1: Interview details The files The files available for download consist of the video and audio recordings of the interviews, separated into segments of approximately 15 minutes in length each. The videos were recorded in split screen to provide a clear view of both interviewer and interviewee. Also provided are the interview schedule and two transcripts for each interview: one in standard ‘playscript’ orthography, and one in Jeffersonian transcription notation (see Forrester, 2002; Jefferson, 2004). Both versions of the transcripts feature line numbering, and Table 2 below maps the video and audio segments of each interview onto the line numbers on the transcripts. Table 2: Line numbers covered by each audio/video file Interviewee Part Playscript line nos Jeffersonian line nos Ethics Given that the resources are freely available on the internet, they raise some important ethical issues. Most notably, because the videos of the interviews are available for download, the participants are all identifiable. The standard requirement in psychological research of maintaining participant confidentiality is therefore not possible. The British Psychological Society (n.d.) advises that ‘[i]n the event that confidentiality and/or anonymity cannot be guaranteed, the participant must be warned of this in advance of agreeing to participate.’ Participants were therefore advised from the outset that the data were being collected explicitly for the purpose of being made available online, and that as a result their anonymity and confidentiality could not be maintained. Participants were also made aware of their right to withdraw from the interview, and to withdraw their data from the project prior to it being made available online. In addition, we gave the participants the opportunity to review the materials prior to making them available online, and to edit or withdraw their contribution if they wished. Despite the impossibility of maintaining participant confidentiality, we nevertheless took some measures to anonymise the interviewees, who were all given pseudonyms. In addition, the names of other people mentioned in the interviews were disguised (by blanking out the sound on the video and audio files, and inserting a pseudonym in the transcripts). On several occasions participants also mentioned other details – such as precise information about courses their friends were studying or local place names – and these were also disguised as appropriate. A section of one of the interviews (Louise’s) was also deleted for ethical reasons. The point at which the deleted section has been removed is clearly marked in all the relevant files. These procedures were scrutinised by ethics committees at Liverpool John Moores University and York St John University, and are described in more detail in Forrester (forthcoming). It is not intended, however, that these procedures should necessarily assuage all concerns regarding the ethics of making these data available online. Indeed, one of the uses of these resources might be to encourage debate around the ethics of making such data available online – something that is likely to become increasingly common in future. References British Psychological Society. (n.d.). Ethical principles for conducting research with human participants. Accessed 27th October 2008 from Cassell, C. (2005). Creating the interviewer: Identity work in the management research process. Qualitative Research, 5, 167-179. Forrester, M. A. (2002). How to do conversation analysis: A brief guide. Accessed 14th November 2008 from Forrester, M. (2010) (forthcoming). Doing qualitative research in psychology: A practical guide. London: Sage. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 1331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. The TQRMUL group would like to acknowledge the funding and support of the HEA Psychology Network.