SOCIAL RESEARCH METHOD – ETHNOGRAPHICAL

Module Convenor to tick, as appropriate: Assessment Deadline:
All work should be submitted by 1pm on the day of submission

Formative: Summative: X

Module Code: Module Title:
Social Research Methods

Title of Assessment
(e.g. Essay One, Critical Essay, Data Analysis, Reflection,
Individual Poster Commentary with Bibliography)
Length / Duration
Component Weighting
Essay 1,500 words 50%

The Marking Criteria for this piece of assessment is:
Module Convenor to type ‘Y’ in appropriate box and affix criteria to the last page of this document.

General Essay Y Group Presentation Poster Annotated Bibliography Essay
Plan

Assessment Specifics
(e.g. Assessment Titles / Narrative / Instructions / Guidance)

In an essay no longer than 1,500 words (+10% max, excluding the bibliography), critically evaluate the methodology used in one of the following journal articles available on DUO (under the ‘Assignments’ tab):
• Durkee, R. (2017) “The Maintenance of Untenable Values: an Ethnographical Study of Group-Level Strategies to Manage Conflict,” Qualitative Sociology, 40: 493-509
An Ethnographic Study of Group-Level Strategies to Manage Conflict (Ethnography).pdf

Each paper is based on one qualitative methods you learned about in Epiphany Term. You may choose the paper which uses the method you wrote about for your formative essay if you want.

Your evaluation should focus on the methodology of the study. In particular, you should consider:
• The appropriateness of the methodology given (a) the aims of the research and (b) the people being studied;
• The appropriateness of the sampling strategy given (a) the aims of the research and (b) the people being studied; and
• Key ethical issues implied by the research and how well these were considered and addressed in the study

Your discussion should be informed by methodological concepts for evaluating good knowledge. You may choose to use a conventional framework, drawing on the concepts of reliability and validity, but you are welcome to use alternative frameworks that specifically relate to qualitative methods instead if you prefer.

As with your formative essay, it is important for you to evaluate the methodology of the research paper in view of its specific substantive focus. Failing to consider the methodology in relation to the topic the paper is addressing is an excellent way to miss marks.

Avoid discussing in detail the research topic or the conclusions drawn by the study. While there might be instances where it is helpful to offer a brief description of these, the focus of your essay should be on the methodology employed by the study and not the substantive topic. Writing an essay about the topic of the paper rather than its methodology is an excellent way of not only missing marks but failing the assessment.

Your essay must draw upon relevant academic literature. These will primarily be publications related to method and methodology. However, you may also want to draw upon other research papers related to the topic as a way of illustrating the points you make in your evaluation. Failing to use academic literature is another excellent way to miss marks. As a guide, you should aim to draw upon at least 6 different sources.

All references should be written in Harvard format (see pages 32-40 of the Study Skills Guide posted on DUO under the Teaching Materials tab for help with this). Failing to format references appropriately is also an excellent way of missing marks.

 

General Rules for submission of assessments and summary marking criteria (for the full marking criteria please refer to your student handbook)

Extensions: can only be agreed by Chair of the Board of Examiners for either Sociology / Criminology (for Sociology or Criminology modules) or Sport (for Sport modules). Failure to hand in your assessment on time without an agreed extension will result in a mark of 0%.

Word Limits: Exceeding word limits will result in penalties. Please see the student handbook.

Plagiarism and/or Collusion: Suspected cases of plagiarism or collusion will ALWAYS be referred to the appropriate Chair of the Board of Examiners for investigation. If accusations are found to be true, the penalties range from reduction of marks to the possibility of being dismissed from the University on grounds of assessment irregularity. Please see University regulations on Assessment Irregularities.

Outstanding Excellent Very Good Good Acceptable Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Very Poor
Organisation i.e. content and structure
Focus on question
Outstanding; focus on question
Excellent focus on question
Good focus on question
Generally sound focus on question
Mostly basic focus on question
Minimal and insufficient focus on question Very superficial and/or inadequate focus on question Negligible focus on question

Level of understanding
Highly accurate, comprehensive, critical & insightful interpretations, showing outstanding understanding Complete, comprehensive and critical interpretations of presented material, showing excellent understanding Consistently good interpretations, showing good understanding Generally sound interpretations, but some inaccuracies or omissions Basics are grasped, but there is confusion about or omission of details Minimal and insufficient understanding; considerable confusion, omission or error Very superficial, incomplete, and/or highly incorrect understanding Entirely superficial, incorrect, and/or highly incomplete understanding
Structure & Organisation Outstanding Excellent Good Generally sound Acceptable but basic Minimal & insufficient Clearly insufficient Structure completely illogical or absent
Use of Sources i.e. presentation and style
References and bibliography
Outstanding standard of referencing; adheres completely to correct referencing protocols Excellent standard of referencing; adheres completely to correct referencing protocols
Consistently good adherence to correct referencing protocols. Generally sound adherence to correct referencing protocols, though some in-accuracies or omissions. Reasonable adherence to referencing protocols, but with a number of inaccuracies and/or omissions. Weak and inconsistent use of appropriate format; significant errors/omissions throughout the paper Some but very little use of appropriate format Negligible or no use of appropriate format
Literacy and accuracy
Outstanding standards of scholarship; of publishable quality Excellent standards of scholarship; approaching publishable quality Good to very good standards of scholarship Sound standards of scholarship Acceptable standards of scholarship Weak and inconsistent standards of scholarship Very little evidence of appropriate standards of scholarship Negligible or no evidence of appropriate standards of scholarship
Analysis and Argument i.e. depth and originality, understanding and appreciation of wider literature
Strength and coherence of argument and analysis
Outstanding; highly coherent and strong argument and analysis Excellent; very coherent and strong argument and analysis Good; generally coherent and strong argument and analysis Sound; fairly coherent and reasonably strong argument and analysis Basic argument and analysis; somewhat coherent Argument and analysis minimal and insufficient in coherence and/or strength Very superficial and/or inadequate strength and coherence of argument and analysis Negligible strength and coherence of argument and analysis
Range and relevance of evidence
Outstanding; highly extensive, original and relevant throughout Excellent; very extensive, and relevant throughout Good; generally extensive and relevant throughout Sound; reasonably extensive and generally relevant Basic; adequate but limited in range and relevance Minimal and insufficient in range and relevance Very limited in range and/or relevance Evidence virtually absent or highly irrelevant