ECON7950 Research Methods in Economics
Assessment 2 – Research Proposal
Instructions and Marking Criteria
Overview
In Assessment 1, you had formulated a research question and searched for related literature. Now it is time for you to build on your annotated bibliography and put forward your own research proposal.
Your Task
Make a written research proposal using the template in the same folder as this instruction.
In your proposal, you will need to articulate:
The “what” of your research
Your research question (see the section below)
How does the research aim to address a significant gap in knowledge or problem?
The “how” of your research
How will you define your variables?
What methods would you like to use to answer your question?
The “why” of your research
How will your research create new knowledge?
How will your research bring changes?
Please use the Written Proposal Template provided (available on the course Blackboard site, under Assessment -> Written Proposal) to complete this assessment. The template will guide you through the proposal with questions and prompts.
Your Research Question
We expect you to continue with the research question you had stated in your Assessment 1 (Annotated Bibliography). Nonetheless, you are allowed to change your research question if you so wish. A change may also be recommended if you didn’t do well in your Annotated Bibliography and the downfall is related to your choice of research question.
The new question, however, should still a research question suitable for a master’s thesis in Economics.
In addition, you will NOT be allowed to change your research topic between Assessments 2 (this one) and 3 (reflection and video proposal) – your video proposal must be on the same research topic as the written proposal.
Format
Please use the Written Proposal Template provided to complete this assessment. We reserve the rights to not mark any submission that does not use the template.
Citation should be in APA 7th style. JEL classification codes should be at alphabet + 2-digit level.
Word limits for individual fields are marked clearly in the template. Exceeding a word limit by more than 20% will result in mark deduction. Going under the word limit by 20% carries no penalty per se, but you may lose marks due to insufficient content.
Submission
Submit your completed Written Proposal Template electronically to Turnitin through the link on the course Blackboard site before Monday, 28th April 2025 1:00pm Brisbane time (GMT+10).
Requests for the granting of extensions must be made online via https://my.uq.edu.au/node/218/2#2 with supporting documentation before the submission due date/time. If an extension is approved, the new agreed date for submission will be noted on the application and the student notified through their student email. Extensions cannot exceed the number of days you suffered from a medical condition, as stated on the medical certificate.
Where an extension has not been previously approved, a penalty of 10% of the maximum possible mark allocated for the assessment item will be deducted per day for up to 7 calendar days, at which point any submission will not receive any marks unless an extension has been approved. Each 24-hour block is recorded from the time the submission is due.
Marking Criteria
Criteria
Maximum possible marks
Statement of research question
5
Justification of research question
5
Use of literature
5
Framing of economic problem
5
Choice of research methods
5
Proposed procedures
5
Implication of research
5
Clarity and quality of written expression
5
Total
40
See Appendix A, below, for a detailed marking rubric.
Three-minute Proposal Competition
Teaching staff will select some of the best proposals from this assessment to enter the Three-minute Proposal Competition. Contestants will give a 3-minute oral pitch of their proposal in the last lecture. There will also be a People's Choice Award, voted by the audience.
Selected students will be notified in or before Week 12. Participating in and/or winning the competition will not affect your marks on any assessment item. Contestants must compete in-person -- there will not be a Zoom option. Please bear this in mind when scheduling your other activities. It would be a pity to forfeit the competition only because you cannot attend the last lecture.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
This task has been designed to be challenging, authentic and complex. Whilst students may use AI technologies, successful completion of assessment in this course will require students to critically engage in specific contexts and tasks for which artificial intelligence will provide only limited support and guidance.
A failure to reference AI use may constitute student misconduct under the Student Code of Conduct.
Academic Integrity
You are expected to maintain academic integrity and appropriate conduct. Unacceptable behaviours include, but are not limited to:
Plagiarism;
Fabrication of references or evidence;
Failure to reference AI use; and
Soliciting or aiding and abetting contract cheating.
Academic misconduct will be handled in accordance with UQ’s policy regarding student misconduct.
Plagiarism is defined by the University as:
the act of misrepresenting as one’s own original work the ideas, interpretations, words or creative works of another either intentionally or unintentionally. These include published and unpublished documents, designs, music, sounds, images, photographs, computer codes and ideas gained through working in a group. These ideas, interpretations, words or works may be found in print and/or electronic media.
Student Integrity and Misconduct Policy
It can occur even if you are filling in a template (rather than writing an essay). Accidental plagiarism is still considered plagiarism and will be handled as an academic misconduct. See UQ Library Guide on Plagiarism if you are unsure what requires referencing. If you haven’t done so, please complete UQ’s compulsory Academic Integrity Modules (AIM).
By submitting your assessment item, you indicate your commitment to UQ’s academic integrity pledge as summarised in the following declaration:
“I certify that I have completed this assessment in an honest, fair and trustworthy manner, that my submitted answers are entirely my own work, and that I have neither given nor received any unauthorised assistance on this assessment”.
Appendix A: Marking Criteria and Standards
Criteria & Mark
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Inadequate
Weak
Poor
5
4
3
2
1
0
Statement of research question
Research question precisely stated that one can envisage the potential answer and the path to it.
Research question unambiguously stated that one can envisage the potential answer, though the path to an answer is less clear.
Research question adequately stated that the relevant field(s) and literature are obvious, though it is unclear what would constitute a satisfactory answer.
Research question vaguely stated that, while the relevant field(s) can be inferred, the research direction is unclear.
Research question opaquely stated that the intention of the researcher is unclear.
Research question not stated or incomprehensible.
Justification of research question
Compelling justification of research question by arguing the significance of knowledge gap or problem.
Reasonable justification of research question by alluding to the significance of knowledge gap or problem.
General and loose justification of research question by implying that the knowledge gap or problem is worth considering.
Limited and vague justification of research question by mentioning an unanswered problem.
Unclear justification of research question by hinting at a problem.
No justification of research question.
Use of literature
Research proposal is developed from a critical appraisal of relevant and authoritative literature (i.e. published in leading journals).
Relevant literature appraised and used to develop some research ideas in the process.
Some attempt to build proposal based on understanding of relevant literature.
Some attempt to relate the proposal to the literature but no attempt to be critical.
Little attempt to relate the proposal to the literature.
No attempt to relate the proposal to the literature.
Criteria & Mark
5
4
3
2
1
0
Framing of economic problem
Choices of variables accurately capture the conceptual problem the proposal seeks to address. Variable definitions highly operational.
Choices of variables adequately capture the conceptual problem the proposal seeks to address. Variable definitions operational.
Choices of variables roughly capture the conceptual problem the proposal seeks to address. Variable definitions usable.
Substantial gaps between choices of variables and the conceptual problem the proposal seeks to address. Variable definitions difficult to use.
Choices of variables fail to capture the conceptual problem the proposal seeks to address. Variable definitions unclear.
Choices of variables unrelated to the conceptual problem the proposal seeks to address. Variable definitions missing.
Choice of research methods
Proposed research methods appropriate for the research problem. Clear indication on how the proposed methods may give a clear answer to the research question.
Proposed research methods appropriate for the research problem, but only a vague indication on how the proposed methods may give a satisfactory answer to the research question.
Proposed research methods appropriate for the research problem, but no indication on how the proposed methods may give an answer to the research question.
Proposed research methods are not the most appropriate for the research problem, but there is an attempt to explain how they may work.
Proposed research methods not the most appropriate. Little indication on how they are related to the research question.
Proposed research methods not appropriate. No indication on how they are related to the research question.
Proposed procedures
Proposed implementation of research methods appropriate, plausible, and ethical.
Proposed implementation of research methods reasonable, feasible, and ethical.
Proposed implementation of research methods conventional, possible, and ethical.
Proposed implementation of research methods doubtful on reasons, feasibility or ethics.
Proposed implementation of research methods questionable on reasons, feasibility or ethics.
Proposed implementation of research methods illogical, infeasible, and/or violate research ethics.
Criteria & Mark
5
4
3
2
1
0
Implication of research
Key issues and points about implications of potential results from research raised.
Some key points about implications of potential results from research identified.
Some general implications of potential results from research noted.
Some vague or doubtful implications of potential results suggested.
Very limited indication of implications of potential results from research.
No indication of implications of potential results from research.
Clarity and quality of written expression
Clarity of expression excellent. Consistently conventional grammar and spelling: professional writing style.
Language mainly fluent. Grammar and spelling mainly accurate.
Meaning apparent but language not always fluent. Grammar and expression weak.
Language, grammar, and spelling do not adhere to academic conventions. Meaning of what has been written not always clear.
Language, grammar, and spelling contain obvious errors. Meaning of what has been written is unclear.
Language, grammar, and spelling contain numerous errors. What has been written is incomprehensible.
Other general marking criteria/standards/penalty
Exceeding word limits: For every 20% of the word limit above 120% of the word limit, 10% of the maximum mark for the relevant part/section will be deducted.
Late penalty: 10% of the maximum mark per calendar day for up to 7 calendar days, at which point any submission will not receive any marks unless an extension has been approved. Each 24-hour block is recorded from the time the submission is due.
Suspected academic misconduct: The case will be referred to the Academic Integrity Officer. Decisions and/or penalty will depend on the outcome of the process.
