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
Independent research
Discussions with Supervisor
Workshop
Supervisor feedback (formative)
Proposal feedback (summative)
Dissertation (summative)
Demonstrate ability in information
literacy
Critically appraise existing scientific
literature relevant to research topic.
Scientific
investigation and
critical thinking
Independent research
Workshop
Discussions with Supervisor
Health Research Design
PUBH2205 or equivalent
Fdns of Epidemiology
PUBH2206 or equivalent
Supervisor feedback (formative and
summative)
Proposal feedback
(Formative and summative)
Dissertation Seminar
(Formative and summative)
Dissertation (summative)
Critically evaluate scientific
literature
Design and justify appropriate research
methods.
Scientific
investigation and
critical thinking
Independent research
Discussions with Supervisor
Third year research units
SPH seminars
Supervisor feedback (formative)
Proposal Seminar (formative)
Written Proposal (summative)
Dissertation Seminar (formative and
summative)
Dissertation (Summative)
Describe, implement and evaluate
research methods
Implement a research strategy
Scientific
investigation and
critical thinking
Independent research
Discussions with Supervisor
SPH seminars
Supervision reports (ongoing)
(formative and summative)
Dissertation Seminar (formative and
summative)
Dissertation (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
Discussions with Supervisor
SPH seminars
Proposal Seminar (formative)
Written Proposal (summative)
Dissertation Seminar (formative and
summative)
Dissertation (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
Discussions with Supervisor
Dissertation Seminar (formative and
summative)
Dissertation (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
Independent research
Ethics essay (summative) Develop positions on ethical issues
informed by scientific
understanding.
Effectively manage a project Personal development
and professional
practice
Independent research
Discussions with supervisor
Supervision reports (ongoing)
(formative and summative)
Effectively manage a project
Accept, interpret and respond
appropriately to feedback.
Personal development
and professional
practice
Supervisor discussions and
feedback
Supervision reports (ongoing)
(formative and summative)
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
http://www.sph.uwa.edu.au/students/honours
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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
supported by evidence /
literature.
Minimal support for
argument.
OR argument is shallow OR
confused AND not fully
supported by evidence /
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
conceptualisation / lateral
thinking.
Main focus is on concrete
issues. Issues stated as fact
rather than conceptualised.
No evidence of
conceptualisation / lateral
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
Facet Attribute High Distinction ( 80-100) Distinction (70-79) Credit ( 60-69) Pass (50-59) Fail (<50)
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.
Choice of methods is
generally appropriate (one or
two minor solvable flaws
may exist in the research
plan) and usually justified.
Choice of methods is
generally appropriate but
there is limited justification
for their use.
OR several significant but
solvable flaws exist in the
research plan.
Choice of methods is
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
limitations is demonstrated.
No awareness of the
limitations is demonstrated.
Matrix 2
38
Facet Attribute High Distinction ( 80-100) Distinction (70-79) Credit ( 60-69) Pass (50-59) Fail (<50)
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
Facet Attribute High Distinction ( 80-100) Distinction (70-79) Credit ( 60-69) Pass (50-59) Fail (<50)
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
reflection demonstrated.
Limited abstraction and
reflection demonstrated.
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
implications for this
research.
Limited discussion of the
limitations but little or no
discussion of their
implications for this
research.
No discussion of the
limitations or their
implications for this
research.
Recommendations
for the future
Makes sound
recommendations for future
research.
Makes generally sound
recommendations for future
research.
Some discussion of
recommendations for future
research.
Limited discussion of
recommendations for future
research.
No discussion of
recommendations for future
research.
Matrix 4
40
Facet Attribute High Distinction ( 80-100) Distinction (70-79) Credit ( 60-69) Pass (50-59) Fail (<50)
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.
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