Workers Compensation Claim Arising from Organisational Injustice Perceptions
Workers Compensation Claim Arising from Organisational Injustice Perceptions
Among Bullied Employees
Word Count: 1498
Introduction
Workplace bullying is the combination of persistent, harmful, and targeted behaviour in a workplace setting, where an individual or group of individuals is subjected to repeated mistreatment, humiliation, or intimidation by one or more perpetrators (Einarsen et al., 2011). There are five critical elements associated with workplace bullying definition, which include negative behaviour, frequency of the negative behaviour, imbalance of power, harmful effect, and prolonged duration (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011; Einarsen et al., 2011; Spagnoli et al., 2017; Tehrani, 2012). Workplace bullying has a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of targets and witnesses, and workplace bullying has been established as a significant psychological hazard (Vartia, 2001) which has an impact on workers compensation claims. Psychological workers compensation claims due to workplace bullying are having a considerable impact not just on our countrys finances and economy but also on hurting the claimants long-term mental health and quality of life (Winefield et al., 2010).
According to Commissioner Stephen Kings speech about Mental Health to the Mental Health Coordinating Council on 6 May 2021, The Productivity Commission estimates mental illness and suicide cost the economy between $200 - $220 billion a year (King, 2021, p. 2). Therefore, unnecessary psychological injury claims can probably be avoided on how an employer manages a complaint of workplace bullying, which in return can have significant consequences on workers perceptions of justice, which may lead to a significant reduction in workers compensation claims for psychological injury (Thirlwall, 2015). Thus, this proposed study explores the intricate relationship between bullied employees' organisational perceptions and their subsequent consequential on lodging workers compensation claims. Further research focusing on bullied employees organisational perceptions and their decision on filing the claim is needed due to the limited current research regarding workers compensation claims (Jenkins et al., 2013). We should further study this through Organisational Justice Theory approach by Greenberg (1987) as the conceptual framework to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the consequences of bullied employees on their decision to lodge workers compensation claims.
Since there have been limited studies in this area, especially in the past 5 to 10 years regarding bullied employees' organisational perceptions and its correlation with workers compensation claims, we will look at evaluating the closest related studies and justify the reason for this proposed study in order to contribute to close the gaps of knowledge on workplace bullying, organisational justice perceptions, and workers compensation. We are interested in further investigating the employees who have experienced workplace bullying and their organisational justice perceptions, which led to their decision to lodge or not lodge the worker's compensation. By identifying the organisational perceptions factors that influence employees' decisions to pursue compensation claims, organisations can implement targeted interventions to address issues related to workplace bullying and promote a fair and just organisational perceptions to prevent expensive workers compensation claims. Therefore, psychological workers compensation claims due to workplace bullying can be significantly reduced by bullied employees perceptions (Roberts & Markel, 2001), and how the organisation addresses stressful incidents plays a crucial role in determining the employees' decision on filing a workers compensation claim (Dollard & Knott, 2004; Roberts & Young, 1997).
Literature Review & Critiques
According to the study by Jenkins, Winfield and Sarris (2013), they have completed research in both measuring bullied workers stress levels using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) and Organisational Perceptions Theory (Greenberg, 1990) to measure the decision on bullied employees which lead to workers compensation claims (Jenkins et al., 2013). The paper has certain methodological constraints, especially since the sample size was relatively small, with only 44 participants in the study. The study has also used a mixed-method approach with open questions and interview sessions with relatively small participants. Hence, it is possible that participants who took part in this type of study may have already been hugely impacted by their bullied experiences, which may be over-representative for the bullied population and hence it is disproportionately represented (Zapf & Goss, 2001; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004). Therefore, due to the limited sample size and biases on the over-represented bullied population, further research is needed on bullied employees perceptions of justice to explore further the decision of bullied employees in making a compensation claim.
Another more recent paper that relates to this proposal study was by Sheehan, Lane and Collie (2019); the paper did show a much better sample size with 8808 participants from workers post 6 to 24 months of the claim with a quantitative approach (Sheehan et al., 2019). The study uses the 6-question Likert scale approach to measure the support participants have received from their employers. Although the study includes both physical and mental health claims, it showed the importance of employers' support during injured workers absence from work to encourage better mental health for the worker and a better successful return to work timeframe (Sheehan et al., 2019). This, in a way, relates to the importance of employees fair and just perceptions if the employers provide enough support during the workplace bullying complaints made, which can prevent bullied employees decisions from making worker's compensation claims. Even though the study has a large sample size, it went for a cross-sectional study, which is biased toward a longer compensation case, which the study is unable to explore on poor perceptions of employers' support (Sheehan et al., 2019). Therefore, further research is needed if we would like to have a comprehensive understanding on the consequential of bullied employees organisational perceptions in relation to workers compensation claims.
Subsequently, there is another quantitative approach study in America by Medina-Craven and Ostermeier (2020), investigating the relationship between workplace bullying and organisational justice; instead of investigating the outcome of workers compensation claims, the study looks into employees intention to leave (Medina-Craven & Ostermeier, 2020). Besides, instead of looking into general bullied employees as a population group for the study, it has 146 healthcare graduate workers as the participants. Therefore, the study lacks the capacity to accurately represent and apply to the broader general population, which again showed that further research is needed on workplace bullying and organisational justice perceptions concerning workers compensation claims. Furthermore, the study also has another limitation: they assume all their participants are bullied targets rather than the instigators (Sheehan et al., 2019).
All the above-mentioned studies have examined the employees organisational perceptions and employers support at a workplace bullying as the conceptual theory framework, including the study by Rooyen and McCormack (2013), which took a qualitative approach rather than a quantitative approach and interviewed 30 participants within one retail organisation (Rooyen& McCormack, 2013). The study investigates employees organisational justice perceptions of workplace bullying and its implications, which then found the significant implications of employees taking time off, losing their confidence, and considering leaving their jobs (Rooyen & McCormack, 2013). It also showed that such an outcome would lead to lower job satisfaction, organisational commitment and work motivation (Bryant et al., 2009; Mathisen et al., 2008), which may lead to bullied employees in filing a compensation claim. However, one of the limitations of the paper was having a small sample size of only 30 participants from a single organisation. Therefore, the results have implicated the need to evaluate its effectiveness and caution in generalising beyond the retail settings and the need to broaden the scope beyond the physical aspects and include more on the psychological factors as well (Rooyen & McCormack, 2013).
Overall and evidently, no comprehensive studies have been completed in the workers compensation realm related to organisational perceptions, especially in larger scale participants using the quantitative approach. Hence, in this proposal study, we should look at having a more significant number of participants who have experienced workplace bullying and utilise the Likert scale by Likert (1932) to measure the employees organisational perceptions via the Organisational Perceptions Theory (Greenberg, 1990) framework to look into the association between the bullied employees' organisational perceptions and their decision on filing workers compensation claim. Also, the quantitative approach will allow for more numerical data, which can provide a standardised measurement of perceptions. It is crucial to have a more comprehensive understanding to look at the intervention within employers' immediate actions to deal with workplace bullying complaints to avoid unjust organisational perceptions, which may lead to significant decisions from bullied employees to lodge the claim. Not to mention that bullied targets are more likely to also experience psychological breakdowns and prolonged recovery processes with bad mental health lifestyles (Yamada, 2011).
Aim and Research Question
In conclusion, due to the limited unbiased research studies in this area, this proposal study aims to call for further research to close the gap in the workers compensation field, especially to explore the critical relationship between bullied employees organisational perceptions and the influence on their decision to lodge workers compensation claims. Hence, based on exploring the nexus between workplace bullying, employees perceptions, and workers compensation claims, thus ask: Can workers compensation claims be avoided among the bullied employees if employees have a fair and just organisational perception toward their employers?.
References
Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 6984. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311410651
Bryant, M., Buttigieg, D., & Hanley, G. (2009). Poor bullying prevention and employee health: Some implications. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 2(1), 48-62.
Dollard, M., & Knott, V. (2004). Incorporating psychosocial issues into our conceptual models of OHS. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, 20(4), 345358.
Einarsen, S. (2011). The concept of bullying at work. The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Workplace Bullying: Development in Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 3-39).
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 922. https://doi.org/10.2307/257990
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organisational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208
Jenkins, M. F., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2013). Perceptions of unfairness in the management of bullying complaints: Exploring the consequences. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijba.v4n4p16
King, S. (2021). A Brief Overview of the Mental Health Inquiry Report. Speech to the Mental Health Coordinating Council, 6 May 2021. Retrieved from [https://www.pc.gov.au/media-speeches/speeches/mental-health/mental-health-brief-overview.pdf]
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes.Archives of Psychology, 22 140,55.
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales. Psychology Foundation.
Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2008). The occurrences and correlates of bullying and harassment in the restaurant sector. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(1), 5968. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00602.x
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2004). Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among victims of bullying at work. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32(3), 335356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069880410001723558
Medina-Craven, M. N., & Ostermeier, K. (2020). Investigating justice and bullying among healthcare workers. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 43(1), 3144. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2019-0195
Roberts, K., & Markel, K. (2001). Claiming in the name of fairness: Organisational justice and the decision to file for workplace injury compensation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(4), 332347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.4.332
Roberts, K., & Young, W. (1997). Procedural fairness, return to work and the decision to dispute in workers' compensation. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 10(1), 193212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025602417477
Sheehan, L. R., Lane, T. J., Gray, S. E., & Collie, A. (2019). Factors associated with employer support for injured workers during a workers' compensation claim. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 29(4), 718727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09834-5
Spagnoli, P., Balducci, C., & Balducci, C. (2017). Do high workload and job insecurity predict workplace bullying after organizational change? International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 10(1), 212. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-05-2016-0038
Tehrani, N. (2012). Workplace bullying: Symptoms and solutions. Routledge.
Thirlwall, A. (2015). Organisational sequestering of workplace bullying: Adding insult to injury. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(2), 145158. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.72
Van Rooyen, J., & McCormack, D. (2013). Employee perceptions of workplace bullying and their implications. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 6(2), 92103. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-05-2012-0013
Vartia, M. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the wellbeing of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 27(1), 6369. http://dx.doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.588
Winefield, H. R., Saebel, J., & Winefield, A. H. (2010). Employee perceptions of fairness as predictors of workers' compensation claims for psychological injury: An Australian case-control study. Stress and Health, 26(1), 312. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1249
Yamada, D. C. (2011). Workplace bullying and American employment law: A ten-year progress report and assessment. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 32(1), 251284.
Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors and job content, social work environment and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 215238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414856
Primary Research Proposal Structure
Title Page
Introduction (10 marks)
Background Introduce reader to topic (real-world problem); define key concepts; emphasise importance of topic; set up research problem (gap in knowledge); signpostingLiterature review What have previous research done/found in this area? What is/are the gap(s) in knowledge?
Aim & RQ How will your proposed research address this gap in knowledge?
Method (35 marks)
Design Will this be a qualitative or quantitative study? What specific type of qual/quant approach will be employed? Why is this the best approach to answer the RQ?
Sample Who is your target population? How many participants should be recruited (& provide evidence)? What sampling method will be used (random/non-random; what specific type of random/non-random sampling method)? How will this be done? Why is this the best approach to answer the RQ?
Data collection What data (outcomes/measures) do you need to collect? How do you plan to collect required data? Consider rigour.
Analysis How will you analyse data? For quant: What is/are your IV(s) and DV(s)? What statistical analysis would be most appropriate to analyse this data? Justify.For qual: What type of analysis would be most appropriate to examine your data? What process(es) will be involved? Justify.
Ethics (20 marks)
Statement that ethical clearance will be sought
Ethical considerations need to be taken into account, with reference to specific ethical principles
Research Plan & critical appraisal (20 marks)
Timeline (Gantt chart) not included in word count
Resources (materials/budget table) included in word countStrengths and weaknesses of study methodology discussed. Limitations (e.g., threats to validity and/or reliability, etc.) described and justified
Conclude that, overall, the study is worthwhile to conduct. Emphasise importance of study and what implications/applications potential findings might have for practice/theory/future research.
Writing style & referencing (15 marks)
Proposal Part 2: Research Plan
Due Date: Friday 9 February 2024, 11:59PM (AEST)
Word Limit: 2,500 words
The word count includes:
Title
Body text
In-text citations
Budget/resources table
The word count does not include:
Title page
Reference list
Gantt chart
(word limits are applied strictly markers will not read beyond the maximum word count)
Weighting: 45% of overall grade
Task DescriptionWrite a research proposal for an original empirical study. In this proposal, it needs to be argued that there is a gap in knowledge worth investigating (into & literature review), and that the proposed research methods (methodology) to address the research question is the most suitable/appropriate approach to answer this question and contribute to the identified gap in knowledge. The proposal must incorporate:
Introduction incl. brief review of literature, which ends with the studys aim & RQ
Description & justification of research methods (design, sampling, data collection, analysis)
Discussion of research ethics (for primary studies), OR outline of comprehensive search strategy (for secondary studies) do not include both
Timeline & resources/budget, and
Critical appraisal of proposed study (highlighting strengths & justifying limitations)
The proposed study can either be a primary or secondary research study. There are slightly different requirements for primary vs secondary studies.
Information in the method section for primary research studies must describewhat the study involves and how it will be designed, and justify how these characteristics are important for answering the proposed research question(e.g., qual/quant approach, who the target population is & how will they be recruited, what types of data are to be collected, how data are to be analysed). Consideration of how the study will beconducted ethicallymust also be discussed.
Information in the method section forsecondary research studies must describe the inclusion criteria for the proposed review. Critical aspects of the studies to be included in the review need to be identified and justified in relation to how these characteristics are important for answering the proposed research question(e.g., the design employed within the studies to be included in the review, who the target populations of these studies are, the types of data to be extracted from these studies, the approach to be taken to describe and evaluate/analyse findings from these studies). As ethical approval is not applicable for non-applied projects (such as reviews and meta-analyses), a comprehensive outline of thesearch strategy and process of selecting studiesis to be provided.
Assignment Submission
Assignments are submitted through Learning@Griffith (canvas). Only the documents uploaded to the Final Submission Portal will be marked. A draft submission portal will be available for students to check similarity (overlap) reports prior to their final submission. This will be done using TurnItIn which is within the assessment in Learning@Griffith (canvas). Please note that any documents submitted into the draft portal will not be marked.
Marking Details
Assignments are marked via TurnItIn and returned within 3 weeks of submission.
Assignment Extensions & Late Submissions
To apply for an extension of time on a written assignment, requests need to be submitted via the online portal which needs to be supplemented by supporting documentation (e.g., medical certificate). Please do not contact the course convenor or tutors regarding assignment extensions these applications are processed centrally by the University. Applications must be made online here: https://www.griffith.edu.au/students/assessment-exams-grades/assessment-applications
Applications must be submitted before the assignment due date
Applications need to be made via the online portal
As perGriffith University Assessment Policy, an assessment item submitted after the due time on the due date set by the Course Convenor, without an approved extension, will be penalised. The standard penalty is the reduction of the mark allocated to the assessment item by 5 percent (%) of the total weighted mark for the assessment item,for each calendar day that the item is late. Assessment items submitted more than seven calendar days after the due date will be awarded zero marks.
Helpful Resources
In preparing this assignment, please consider:
Course content (specifically, Topics 4 through 10)
Marking rubric (end of document)
Feedback from teaching team on Proposal Part 1 and discussion board.
Templates (L@G > Proposal Part 2 page)
Example paper Module 7 slides
Info on Proposal Part 2 Module 7 and Module 11 slides
Teaching staff
Discussion boards. Here, your tutor can help you refine your research question & study methodology, and answer assignment-related questions.
Drop-in Consultation sessions with the teaching team. Pop by during scheduled time to ask questions about your assignment/content/materials.
FAQs
If you have any questions, we encourage you to post this in the discussion board
Am I actually going to carry out this research in this course?
No, you are constructing a research proposal that outlines a design for a future study. You may one day put your research plan into action, particularly if your program involves a research project or dissertation course, but in this course, you do not need to actually undertake the research. It is important that you do not attempt to undertake research without ethical approval.
Can I copy and paste my literature review from my previous assignment into this assignment?
No. You cannot use work previously submitted for marking. This will be identified as self-plagiarism, which is considered academic misconduct. Do not copy and paste parts of your literature review into your research plan. You will need to summarise the findings from your literature review, highlighting the gap in knowledge that your proposed study aims to address. If you are happy with the wording of your research question used in Proposal Part 1, you can use the same wording for this assignment no need to paraphrase.
You can use the same references you did in your literature review. Just remember to paraphrase and summarise this information. Ensure that you incorporate the feedback provided from Proposal Part 1 to guide your modifications.
In the literature review, there was a recommended number of sources. Is there a specific number of references you are looking for in this assignment?
No. While you need to justify your choices made throughout with references, the marking team are not looking for any particular number of sources. However, it is important that you cite others ideas, methods, definitions, etc. appropriately. Otherwise, this is considered plagiarism which is a form of academic misconduct.
Can I include information in an appendix?
Any essential parts of your assignment that you want marked needs to be in the main text of your assignment (i.e., before your reference list). Please do not put essential elements like your budget or timeline in an appendix. If you would like to put relevant information that is not essential in an appendix (for example a list of interview questions you have developed), you can, but they must be referred to in your main text. You will not receive marks for anything placed in an appendix.
Figure 1
Timeline for Proposed Study
Weeks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Planning Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Sampling Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Data Collection Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Analysis Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Writing Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Figure 1
Timeline for Proposed Study
Weeks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Planning Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Sampling Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Data Collection Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Analysis Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Writing Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3
7001HSV Proposal Part 2: Research Plan T3, 2023
Criteria 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 - 0
Logical, specific, and answerable research question supported by literature review
/10 The topic and all key concepts are defined clearly and succinctly with clear, simple explanations suitable for an interdisciplinary audience. Thoughtful critique of studies demonstrates sophisticated understanding of research methods. The review represents a logical argument supported with evidence that there is an important gap in existing knowledge, and explicitly sets out a coherent conceptual or theoretical framework to ground the study. The aims of the study are the logical conclusion of the literature review. The research question is clear, specific, succinct, and answerable. The topic and all key concepts are defined clearly, although language may be technical in places. Solid critique of empirical studies demonstrates understanding of research methods. The review argues that there is an important gap in existing knowledge, and supports this with evidence. The conceptual or theoretical framework for the study is coherent but may benefit from better explanation or more explicit discussion. Logical and achievable aims are set out. The research question is clear, specific, and answerable. An explicit statement of the topic is provided. Key terms are defined but definitions may be superficial. A good attempt to critique empirical studies demonstrates a developing understanding of research methods. The review states that there is an important gap in knowledge, and this is mostly supported with evidence. There is a good attempt to integrate theory as a grounding for the study. Aims are consistent with the gap identified in the literature. The research question is clear but may need some refinement to be more specific and answerable. The topic of the paper is apparent. Key concepts are introduced, although explanations may lack specificity, clarity, or be inconsistent with the literature. Limited or superficial attempts to critique studies demonstrates knowledge of research methods but only emerging understanding. The review states that there is an important gap in knowledge, with some evidence to support this. Application of theory may be limited or superficial. Aims of the study are explicit by may require some refinement. The direction of the study is apparent, but the research question may lack clarity or specificity.
The topic of the paper is not immediately clear. Key concepts are omitted, or definitions may be inaccurate or unclear. Studies are only described; attempts to critique are absent, illogical, or demonstrate a lack of knowledge about research methods. An argument about an important gap in knowledge is absent, illogical, or not supported with evidence. Attempt to integrate theory is absent or illogical. Aims of the study are inconsistent with the gap identified. Research question is inconsistent with aims or does not make sense.
35 - 30 29 27 26 23 22 18 17 0
Methods described & justified, and suitable for answering research question
/35 The proposal demonstrates congruence across all elements of the design. Each element is explained clearly and concisely in simple terms and justified with reference to quality research methods texts or previous research. The proposal demonstrates a deep understanding of research methods that is applied to the proposed study. It is clear that the proposed method would answer the research question. The proposal is mostly congruent with only minor inconsistencies across elements of the design. Each element is explained and justified with reference to quality research methods texts, although there may be a tendency to rely on technical language or jargon. The proposal demonstrates solid understanding of methods covered in the course. The proposed method would answer the research question. While there is some incongruence across elements of the design, an understanding of the difference between quantitative and qualitative paradigms is evident. Each element is explained and there is a good attempt to justify, although arguments may be weak or not always supported with reference to research methods texts. The proposal demonstrates an understanding of methods covered in the course. The proposed method could answer the research question with minor adjustment.
Elements of the design are not always congruent. Some confusion between quantitative and qualitative research may be evident. Each element is explained, although explanations may lack specificity or clarity. A fair attempt is made to justify choices. The proposal demonstrates an emerging understanding of the methods covered in the course. The proposed method would require adjustment to respond to the research question. Elements of the design are omitted or mismatched. Explanations for elements are confused or absent. Justifications for choices are absent or illogical. The proposal demonstrates a lack of understanding of research methods covered in the course. The proposed method does not respond to the research question.
20 17 16 15 14 13 12 10 9 0
Ethical issues are described and addressed
(primary research)
/20
OR
Search methods and process of selecting studies described and addressed (secondary research)
/20
*Either the ethics or the search strategy criterion is to be addressed. This depends on whether the proposed study is primary vs secondary. Principles of ethical research and relevant ethics documents such as the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (for human research) or the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (for animal research) are used to frame the discussion of ethics. Potential ethical problems are explained and an approach to avoid or suitably mitigate problems is provided with appropriate evidence included where required. These problems are clearly linked to ethical principles. Appropriate ethical approval processes are explained succinctly. The discussion demonstrates to the reader that the project could be completed ethically.
A clear and comprehensive search strategy is provided. Effective search terms have been clearly outlined. Appropriate databases and alternative avenues that will be explored, and any search limits that may be applied, have been described and justified. Appropriate processes for selecting relevant studies are explained succinctly. The discussion demonstrates to the reader that the project has been carefully planned and could be completed by following the steps outlined. Principles of ethical research and relevant ethics documents such as the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (for human research) or the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (for animal research) are used in the discussion of ethics. Most potential ethical problems are explained and an approach to avoid or suitably mitigate these problems is provided. These problems may not be clearly linked to relevant ethical principles. Evidence is mostly provided where required. Appropriate ethical approval processes are explained. The project could be completed ethically.
A comprehensive search strategy is provided. Search terms have been outlined but may not yield comprehensive, relevant results. Appropriate databases and alternative avenues that will be explored, and any search limits that may be applied, have been described but lacks clear justification. Processes for selecting relevant studies are explained. The discussion demonstrates to the reader that the project has been carefully planned though some critical aspects have been omitted or lack specificity. Principles of ethical research and relevant ethics documents such as the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (for human research) or the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (for animal research) are described in the discussion of ethics. Major ethical problems are explained and approaches to avoid or mitigate problems are provided, although there may still be some minor issues not fully resolved. A statement about an ethics approval process is included. The project could be completed ethically with minor adjustments.
A general search strategy is provided. Search terms relevant to the research topic have been outlined but may not yield comprehensive, relevant results. A good attempt has been made to describe relevant databases, alternative avenues, and potential search limits, but justification has not been provided for these decisions. The processes for selecting relevant studies are described though some critical steps have been omitted or lack specificity. Principles of ethical research and relevant ethics documents the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (for human research) or the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (for animal research) are referred to, but discussion may be superficial or lacking nuance. Major ethical problems are identified, and an attempt is made to address these problems. However, ethical issues have not been addressed fully. A statement about ethics approval is included but may lack specificity. It may not be possible to proceed with the project in its current form.
A general search strategy is provided. Search terms mostly relevant to the research topic have been outlined but will not yield comprehensive, relevant results. Databases to be explored have been listed and lack justification. Description and justification for potential search limits, and alternative avenues for literature searching not provided. The processes for selecting relevant studies are briefly mentioned. Many critical steps for completing the study have been omitted or lack specificity. Principles of ethical research are absent from discussion, or there is a demonstrated lack of understanding of principles. Relevant ethics documents such as the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (for human research) or the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (for animal research) are not cited or not understood. Major ethical problems are either not identified or strategies to address ethical challenges are illogical or inadequate. Conducting the research in its current form would represent a serious ethical violation.
A search strategy is absent or there is a demonstrated lack of understanding of search methods and strategies. Search terms are inconsistent with the research topic and will not yield comprehensive, relevant results. Databases to be utilised, alternate avenues for finding literature, and search limits, are not described and justified, or absent. The processes for selecting relevant studies are confused or absent. The study could not be completed by following the steps outlined.
20 17 16 15 14 13 12 10 9 0
Resources and activities covered in budget and timeline; Proposed study evaluated critically
/20 Clear visual representation of the proposed timeline and a table setting out the budget are included. Timeline and budget are comprehensive and consistent with the proposal. The proposed study is critically appraised by highlighting and discussing key strengths and limitations of the studys methodology. Limitations are justified with reference to ethical and/or practical constraints. The appraisal represents a strong and coherent argument that the proposed method is the best possible approach to answer the research question. A strong conclusion is presented and argues that conducting the study would be worthwhile. Clear visual representation of the proposed timeline and a table setting out the budget are included. Timeline and budget are consistent with the proposal. The proposed study is appraised by highlighting key strengths and limitations of the studys methodology, though discussion may be vague. Limitations mostly justified with reference to ethical and/or practical constraints. The appraisal argues that the proposed method is the best possible approach to answer the research question. A conclusion is presented which argues that the study is worthwhile, though this could have been conveyed with more clarity. Visual representation of the timeline and a list of resources required for the project are included. Only minor discrepancies are evident in the timeline and budget. Good attempt to discuss strengths and limitations, though this may be covered vaguely or may not be focused on study methodology. Good attempt to justify limitations with reference to ethical and/or practical constraints. There is an attempt to argue that the proposed method is the best possible approach to answer the research question. A conclusion is presented which attempts to argue that conducting the study would be worthwhile.
A timeline and required budget/resources are included, although presentation could be improved. Some discrepancies or omissions in timeline and budget. Strengths and limitations are identified but discussion may be superficial or lacking nuance. Strengths and limitations have been mentioned but covered superficially. Focus of appraisal may not be on study methodology. The discussion of limitations is primarily descriptive rather than a justification. A conclusion is presented but it is not argued that the study would be worthwhile to investigate. Timeline and budget are absent, lacking detail, or inconsistent with the proposal. Discussion of strengths and limitations is absent, illogical, or demonstrates a lack of understanding of research methods. No conclusion presented.
15 13 12 11 - 10 9 8 7 - 0
Academic standards of writing and referencing adhered to
/15 Writing style and paragraph structure are excellent and free of errors. The author communicates in simple terms so that complex ideas can be understood easily by educated non-experts. Citations provided where required throughout the paper. Conforms to APA 7 style with virtually no errors in the text or the reference list. Writing style and paragraph structure are very good. Very few minor errors in spelling or grammar. Some tendency to rely on jargon, acronyms, or use language not suitable for an interdisciplinary audience. Citations provided where required throughout the paper. Conforms to APA 7 style with few minor errors in the text or the reference list.
Writing style and paragraph structure is generally good with only minor errors in spelling and grammar. Phrasing may be cumbersome or awkward in places. More signposting required. Citations mostly provided where required in the paper. Mostly accurate use of APA 7 style with some errors. Writing style and structure need improvement, but the authors meaning is generally clear to the reader. Citations mostly provided where required throughout the paper. Some incorrect referencing technique/s (e.g., standard format, direct quotes, text referencing, and reference list). Needs a good proofread. The authors intended meaning is obscured by poor structure and writing style including spelling, grammar, sentence structure, and paragraph structure. Significant portions of material are not referenced. Referencing style is incorrect.
Proposal Part 2: Research Plan
Due Date: Friday 9 February 2024, 11:59PM (AEST)
Word Limit: 2,500 words
The word count includes:
Title
Body text
In-text citations
Budget/resources table
The word count does not include:
Title page
Reference list
Gantt chart
(word limits are applied strictly markers will not read beyond the maximum word count)
Weighting: 45% of overall grade
Task DescriptionWrite a research proposal for an original empirical study. In this proposal, it needs to be argued that there is a gap in knowledge worth investigating (into & literature review), and that the proposed research methods (methodology) to address the research question is the most suitable/appropriate approach to answer this question and contribute to the identified gap in knowledge. The proposal must incorporate:
Introduction incl. brief review of literature, which ends with the studys aim & RQ
Description & justification of research methods (design, sampling, data collection, analysis)
Discussion of research ethics (for primary studies), OR outline of comprehensive search strategy (for secondary studies) do not include both
Timeline & resources/budget, and
Critical appraisal of proposed study (highlighting strengths & justifying limitations)
The proposed study can either be a primary or secondary research study. There are slightly different requirements for primary vs secondary studies.
Information in the method section for primary research studies must describewhat the study involves and how it will be designed, and justify how these characteristics are important for answering the proposed research question(e.g., qual/quant approach, who the target population is & how will they be recruited, what types of data are to be collected, how data are to be analysed). Consideration of how the study will beconducted ethicallymust also be discussed.
Information in the method section forsecondary research studies must describe the inclusion criteria for the proposed review. Critical aspects of the studies to be included in the review need to be identified and justified in relation to how these characteristics are important for answering the proposed research question(e.g., the design employed within the studies to be included in the review, who the target populations of these studies are, the types of data to be extracted from these studies, the approach to be taken to describe and evaluate/analyse findings from these studies). As ethical approval is not applicable for non-applied projects (such as reviews and meta-analyses), a comprehensive outline of thesearch strategy and process of selecting studiesis to be provided.
Assignment Submission
Assignments are submitted through Learning@Griffith (canvas). Only the documents uploaded to the Final Submission Portal will be marked. A draft submission portal will be available for students to check similarity (overlap) reports prior to their final submission. This will be done using TurnItIn which is within the assessment in Learning@Griffith (canvas). Please note that any documents submitted into the draft portal will not be marked.
Marking Details
Assignments are marked via TurnItIn and returned within 3 weeks of submission.
Assignment Extensions & Late Submissions
To apply for an extension of time on a written assignment, requests need to be submitted via the online portal which needs to be supplemented by supporting documentation (e.g., medical certificate). Please do not contact the course convenor or tutors regarding assignment extensions these applications are processed centrally by the University. Applications must be made online here: https://www.griffith.edu.au/students/assessment-exams-grades/assessment-applications
Applications must be submitted before the assignment due date
Applications need to be made via the online portal
As perGriffith University Assessment Policy, an assessment item submitted after the due time on the due date set by the Course Convenor, without an approved extension, will be penalised. The standard penalty is the reduction of the mark allocated to the assessment item by 5 percent (%) of the total weighted mark for the assessment item,for each calendar day that the item is late. Assessment items submitted more than seven calendar days after the due date will be awarded zero marks.
Helpful Resources
In preparing this assignment, please consider:
Course content (specifically, Topics 4 through 10)
Marking rubric (end of document)
Feedback from teaching team on Proposal Part 1 and discussion board.
Templates (L@G > Proposal Part 2 page)
Example paper Module 7 slides
Info on Proposal Part 2 Module 7 and Module 11 slides
Teaching staff
Discussion boards. Here, your tutor can help you refine your research question & study methodology, and answer assignment-related questions.
Drop-in Consultation sessions with the teaching team. Pop by during scheduled time to ask questions about your assignment/content/materials.
FAQs
If you have any questions, we encourage you to post this in the discussion board
Am I actually going to carry out this research in this course?
No, you are constructing a research proposal that outlines a design for a future study. You may one day put your research plan into action, particularly if your program involves a research project or dissertation course, but in this course, you do not need to actually undertake the research. It is important that you do not attempt to undertake research without ethical approval.
Can I copy and paste my literature review from my previous assignment into this assignment?
No. You cannot use work previously submitted for marking. This will be identified as self-plagiarism, which is considered academic misconduct. Do not copy and paste parts of your literature review into your research plan. You will need to summarise the findings from your literature review, highlighting the gap in knowledge that your proposed study aims to address. If you are happy with the wording of your research question used in Proposal Part 1, you can use the same wording for this assignment no need to paraphrase.
You can use the same references you did in your literature review. Just remember to paraphrase and summarise this information. Ensure that you incorporate the feedback provided from Proposal Part 1 to guide your modifications.
In the literature review, there was a recommended number of sources. Is there a specific number of references you are looking for in this assignment?
No. While you need to justify your choices made throughout with references, the marking team are not looking for any particular number of sources. However, it is important that you cite others ideas, methods, definitions, etc. appropriately. Otherwise, this is considered plagiarism which is a form of academic misconduct.
Can I include information in an appendix?
Any essential parts of your assignment that you want marked needs to be in the main text of your assignment (i.e., before your reference list). Please do not put essential elements like your budget or timeline in an appendix. If you would like to put relevant information that is not essential in an appendix (for example a list of interview questions you have developed), you can, but they must be referred to in your main text. You will not receive marks for anything placed in an appendix.
