to explore the impact of living with type2 diabetes
In successful completion of this assessment and this module, you will be able to:
- Demonstrate a deep understanding of, and ability to critically evaluate, the role of qualitative methods within health psychology.
- Demonstrate competence in choosing, applying and reporting qualitative data generation/collection and analysis techniques in the context of research within health psychology.
Summative Assessment [Graded Assessment]
The word limit does not include the: title, abstract, reference list or appendices. It does include all in-text citations, tables, and data excerpts.
Assessment Overview
There is one piece of coursework for this module comprising a 4000-word qualitative research report. This report is worth 100% of your module mark. The portfolio must be written in English.
The word limit for the portfolio is 4000 words (maximum) and includes all in-text citations, tables, figures and data excerpts. The word could DOES NOT include your title page (including declaration statement), abstract, reference list or appendices. There is no 10% variance applied. Words beyond the 4000-word limit will NOT be reviewed for grading.
You will be provided with a choice of secondary qualitative data sets and associated research aim(s)/questions.
- Type 2 diabetes
o Research aim: to explore the impact of living with type2 diabetes; Secondary source Health talk online
You will need to consider the data sets and the associated research aim and select one to work with. Next, you will decide on a method of analysis and epistemological position that is appropriate to analyse the data within. I have selected interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) as the method and epistemology. Following this, you will then write a qualitative research report using the data provided, following the guidance for writing a qualitative report below.
Please note: if using an IPA approach, you may only need to use a selection of the data provided. Please speak to your tutor for more information.
Guidance for Writing a Qualitative Research Report
In your report it is expected that you will include the following sections:
Title
This should be a clear, concise and informative title that reflects the focus and nature of the research report.
Abstract
A structured abstract which is clear, concise and informative and outlines the: background, aim(s), methods (including participant details), results/findings and conclusions of the study.
Introduction
- Clear introduction to the chosen health psychology topic
- Review of relevant research that drives the research aim/question
- Critical evaluation of the literature and a breadth of appropriate reading
- Provides a rationale for the research question/aim
- Provides a rationale for using a qualitative approach
- Clear identification of the research question/aim
- Logical structure
Methods – Apply BPS guidelines
Structured methods section including the following sub-sections: design, participants, materials, procedure, ethical considerations and analytic strategy.
- Discussion of the epistemological position and its fit with the method of analysis and method of data collection
- Detailed discussion of the method of data analysis in the analytic strategy
- Detailed description of the participants (including basic demographic information where available)
- Detailed and appropriate discussion of the study ethical considerations
Analysis – IPA six stage process in Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2022). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage Publications Ltd.
- Identification of the themes/sub-themes (or similar) or other findings
- Clearly set out with participant quotes distinguishable from surrounding analytical text
- Structured analysis e.g. with quotations illustrating analytic or interpretative points
- Analysis that links to the wider literature and research aim
- Analysis grounded within the scope of relevant methodological literature (e.g. focusing on experience in IPA) and reflective of the epistemology.
- Presents themes that are grounded in the data
- Analytic and/or interpretative rather than purely descriptive
- Analysis is evidenced with data quotes clearly
Shows a sound understanding of the chosen method of analysis and thorough engagement with the relevant literature
Discussion – BPS guidelines
- Reiterates the aim and reiterates the main findings/theme(s) of the report.
- Draws the threads of the report together, discussing overall findings and their fit with wider literature/context
- Recognition of limitations of the study; these should be specific to your study. It is not acceptable to say, ‘findings cannot be generalised’ or there was a ‘small sample size’.
- Proposals for future research building on your study findings and limitations
- A concise conclusion
General
- Clear, concise and informative title that indicates an appropriate topic or area of study
- Well organised and appropriately structured according to standard psychological reporting
- Is within the word limit
- Well written with good academic writing style
- Evidence of appropriate wider reading
- Appropriate referencing throughout using APA 7 style
IPA Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHoR1WEWDL0
| Level 7 Rubric AY 19-20 | Very Good
(60-69) |
Good/Satisfactory
(50-59) |
Unsatisfactory
(40-49) |
Very Poor
(5-39) |
Nothing of Merit
(1-4) |
|||||||
| Excellent | ||||||||||||
| (70-100) | ||||||||||||
| Title and Abstract | Title is clear and reflects the study topic, methods and aim with clarity. Abstract is structured and includes exceptional detail on the study aim, participants, methods, findings, and impact. | Title is clear and reflects the study topic, methods or aim with clarity. Abstract is structured and includes detail on the study aim, participants, methods, findings, and impact but could be developed. | Title reflects the study topic or population but does not make the methods or approach taken clear. Abstract is structured but lacks key information about the study such as the method of analysis, research aim or participant information. | Title reflects the study topic or population but does not make the methods or approach taken clear. The abstract is unstructured and lacks key information about the study and the participants. | Title does not reflect the study topic or population. The abstract is unstructured or missing. | A title is not included nor is an abstract. | ||||||
| Introduction
Including literature review and rationale for study |
Exceptionally well researched with excellent range of relevant sources which are critically evaluated. A strong rationale is provided for both the research aim and taking a qualitative approach. The study aim is clearly detailed. | Very well researched, with a very good range of relevant sources with some critical evaluation. A rationale is provided for both the research aim and taking a qualitative approach. The study aim is discussed also discussed. . | Quite well researched, with a good range of relevant sources. There is some attempt at critique and evaluation, but this could be improved. There is some attempt at rationale for the study but little rationale for the qualitative approach. The study aim is included but is not clearly defined. | Not well researched; and does not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the literature presented. There is no evaluation of the any research presented and no rationale for a qualitative approach or the study. | Lack of research evidence and does not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the topic area. No rationale is provided for the study aim or a qualitative approach. A study aim is not detailed. | Significant lack of research evidence. A study aim is not included. This section is largely missing. | ||||||
| Methods
Including theoretical approach |
The methods section is structured using a standard psychological format. An excellent level of information is included and is succinctly presented. The epistemological position of the research and the methods of analysis and data collection are clearly detailed, and their fit discussed with a clear understanding of the theory. The participants section includes all relevant detail and the study is replicable. Ethical considerations and guidelines are clearly considered. | The methods section is structured using a standard psychological format. A very good level of information is included but there may be some unnecessary information included. The epistemological position of the research and the methods of analysis and data collection are detailed but their fit may not be discussed. The participants section is included but there may be some missing information. The study is replicable. Ethical considerations and guidelines are clearly considered. | The methods section is structured but may include some unnecessary sections or miss required sections. A good level of information is included but some unnecessary information is included, or some required information is missing. The epistemological position of the research and the methods of analysis and data collection are detailed. The participants section is included but there may be some missing information and the study is replicable. Ethical considerations and guidelines are clearly considered. | The methods section is not structured. There is a body of unnecessary or missing information. The epistemological position of the research is missing. The method of analysis is not clearly defined. The study is not replicable. Ethical considerations and guidelines are not considered. | The methods section is not structured. There is a body of unnecessary or missing information. The epistemological position of the research is missing. The method of analysis is not detailed. The study is not replicable. Ethical considerations and guidelines are not included. | The methods section is not structured and is largely missing. The study is not replicable. Ethical considerations and guidelines are not detailed. Ethical guidance or approved ethics forms have not been adhered to. | ||||||
| Results or Analysis | The findings of the analysis are clearly detailed, and the analysis is exceptionally well presented with quotes clearly distinguishable from the surrounding text and appropriate use of subtitles. Quotes/data are signposted in the analytical narrative and used to evidence the researcher’s analytical story. The analysis relates to the epistemological position identified in the method and refers to the research aim. The analysis goes beyond a domain- summary of the data to reflect central organising concepts. The findings are discussed with reference to appropriate wider research. | The findings of the analysis are clearly detailed, and the analysis is very well presented with quotes clearly distinguishable from the surrounding text and appropriate use of subtitles. Quotes/data are signposted in the analytical narrative and used to evidence the researcher’s analytical story. The analysis relates to the epistemological position identified in the method and refers to the research aim. The analysis largely goes beyond a domain-summary of the data to reflect central organising concepts but may be descriptive in places. The findings are discussed with reference to appropriate wider research. | The findings of the analysis are detailed, and the analysis is well presented with quotes distinguishable from the surrounding text and appropriate use of subtitles. Quotes/data are signposted in the analytical narrative and used to evidence the researcher’s analytical story. The analysis is linked to the research aim. The analysis goes beyond a domain- summary of the data to some extent but may be descriptive in places. The findings are discussed in relation to limited appropriate wider research or the link between findings and wider literature is not made clear. | The findings of the analysis are not clearly detailed or the quotes are not clearly distinguishable from the surrounding text. Quotes/data may be included but are not signposted in the analytical narrative or used to evidence the researcher’s analytical story. The analysis is not discussed in relation to the research aim. The analysis is descriptive providing only a domain- summary of the data. The findings are not discussed in relation to appropriate wider literature. | The findings of the analysis are not detailed, and quotes/data are not presented to support the analysis. The analysis is not discussed in relation to the research aim. The analysis is descriptive or subjective. The findings are not discussed in relation to appropriate wider literature. | The findings of the analysis are not detailed. No data is presented, and the analysis is largely missing. A statistical analysis is presented. | ||||||
| Discussion | The study aim is clearly reiterated, and the findings generated clearly detailed. The main findings are positioned within the wider literature and the contribution of the research clearly defined. Strengths and limitations are appropriate and specific to the study design and its findings and may demonstrate knowledge of the qualitative approach taken. Future research is detailed and is discussed in relation to the study findings and limitations. A conclusionary statement is provided which discusses the findings and the impact of the study. | The study aim is clearly reiterated, and the findings generated detailed. The main findings are positioned within the wider literature and the contribution of the research is discussed to some extent. Strengths and limitations are discussed and are appropriate and specific to the study design and its findings. Future research is detailed and is discussed in relation to the study. A conclusionary statement is provided which discusses the findings and the impact of the study. | The study aim is reiterated, and the findings detailed. The main findings are positioned within the wider literature to some extent. Strengths and limitations are discussed and are appropriate but may be more general than study specific. Future research is detailed but may be more general than study specific. A conclusionary statement is provided. | The study aim is not reiterated, and the findings are not clearly detailed. The main findings are not positioned within the wider literature or the discussion of literature is not applied to the study findings.The discussion may reflect a lack of understanding of the qualitative approach taken. Limitation and future research may be detailed but the discussion is limited. A conclusionary statement is not provided. | The study aim is not reiterated, and the findings are not clearly detailed. The main findings are not positioned within the wider literature. The discussion reflects a lack of understanding of the qualitative approach taken. Limitations are discussed but are not appropriate for a qualitative study. Strengths and future research are missing. A conclusionary statement is not provided. | The study aim is not reiterated, and the findings are not detailed. There is no discussion of wider literature. Limitations, strengths, and future research are missing. A conclusionary statement is not provided. | ||||||
| General
Including Academic Writing, Referencing Style and structure |
Excellent clarity of ideas, coherence and logic with fluent academic writing. Appropriate psychological language has been used throughout. Statements are evidenced appropriately throughout and APA 7th Edition referencing style is presented to an excellent standard. | Commendable clarity of ideas; very good sense of coherence and logic. Consistent use of appropriate psychological language. Statements are mostly evidenced appropriately throughout and APA 7th Edition referencing style is adhered to. | Ideas generally clear and coherent. An ability to use appropriate psychological language. Statements are mostly evidenced appropriately throughout and APA 7th Edition referencing style is adhered to but there may be some errors in both in-text citations and the reference list. | Ideas lack some clarity and coherence. Lack of ability to use psychological terms appropriately. Lack of appropriate referencing with several areas needing supporting references. APA style may be presented as 6th Edition APA. | Ideas lack clarity and coherence. Inability to use appropriate psychological terms. There is a lack of APA style referencing throughout and largely missing references. | Ideas significantly lack
clarity and coherence. Inability to use appropriate psychological terms. Referencing has not been applied to the assessment. |
Some reference and please add more:
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Answers to frequently asked questions about thematic analysis. Thematic analysis: A reflexive approach. https://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/thematic-analysis.html#7f465f88ad64a879655581789558d01
Giorgi, A. (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh, Dusquesne University Press.
Giorgi, A., & Giorgi, B. (2003). Phenomenology. In J Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 26-52). Sage Publications.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Harper and Row. Langridge, D. (2007). Phenomenological psychology: Theory, research and method. Pearson Education Limited.
Lyons, E., & Coyle, A. (2016). Analysing qualitative data in psychology. SAGE Publications.
Reiners, G. (2012). Understanding the differences between Husserl’s (descriptive) and Heidegger’s (Interpretive) phenomenological research. Nursing and Care, 1(5). https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1168.1000119
Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage Publications Ltd. Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2022). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage Publications Ltd.
https://alt-60def59bafa37.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/institution/UDOL/7PS523_Advanced_Qualitative_Methods_May_2022/printable_versio… 16/17
Smith, J., Jarman, M., & Osborn, M. (1999). Doing Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In M. Murray. & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Qualitative health psychology: Theories and methods (pp.218-240). Sage Publications.
Smith, J. (2015). Qualitative Psychology: A practical guide to research methods. SAGE Publications.
Smith, J., & Eatough, V. (2015). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In E. Lyons & A. Coyle (Eds.), Analysing Qualitative Data in Psychology (pp.50-67). SAGE Publications.
Sparks, H., & Trinidad, S. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1372-1380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307307031
