Department of Economics

Report on: the Research Practice Seminar 2004

The Research Practice Seminar (RPS) was introduced as an alternative to the Dissertation in providing the research training element of the MSc degree, with effect from the summer period of academic year 2003/4.

Student Numbers

Of 119 students, 12 elected to do the dissertation. The remainder were assigned to RPS groups.

Summary of RPS Structure

Students were assigned to two seminar groups (two RPS) each with a different research subject. 14 RPS subjects were offered.

In each RPS each student was further assigned to a study group charged with carrying out research exercises equivalent to the research tasks involved in the preparation of a dissertation.

Each RPS group met as a seminar on five occasions. On the first occasion the topic was introduced by the seminar convenor and students were assigned to groups and research tasks. On subsequent occasions the students presented their ongoing research and feedback was provided by the seminar convenor and by general discussion.

Contact outside the seminars was provided through at least one office hour per fortnight and by email.

The RPS differed from the dissertation in two main ways:

· Team-work in research was required, as well as individual study

· Assessment was by examination rather than by submission of a long written report.

Summary of RPS Assessment

Assessment was undertaken through two modules each carrying a 30-credit weight and each assessed by one three-hour written examination. These modules were

· 04ECP301 Specialist Subject Knowledge

· 04ECP302 Research Skills

For each examination the student was required to answer two sections, one for each RPS subject.

Reasons for Introducing the RPS

To address a deterioration in dissertation quality arising from (i) a noticeable increase in the incidence of plagiarism and ‘cut-and-paste’ and (ii) an excessively high ratio of dissertation students to supervisors.

To allow a small number of staff to supervise effectively the research activities of a large number of students.

To allow students a greater choice of research topic.

Outcomes of the 2004 RPS

The research tasks included all, or most of, the following: reading of assigned literature; extended literature search; critical review of the literature to identify specific research issues; formulation and justification of a research question; formulation of research design and justification of methodology to investigate the research question; collection and statistical analysis of data; review of results with reference to the published literature; critique of the chosen methodology and suggestions for improved research.

The greatest area for improvement signalled by the examination performance was in literature review (see next page, item 3).

Critical evaluation of the RPS method requires two independent benchmarks: a relative standard (comparison with the dissertation system) and an absolute standard.

Relative Standard (Comparison with Dissertation)

The first experience of running the RPS was highly satisfactory in comparison to the dissertation alternative.

· Plagiarism and ‘cut-and-paste’ research were successfully eliminated, as expected

· Student absenteeism (previously common for the dissertation) was almost 100% eliminated, as expected

· Students were in general highly enthusiastic and very active in their pursuit of research task goals

· A much higher proportion of students could be allocated to research subjects of their choice than would have been possible for the dissertation

· The examination results revealed a level of research sophistication that was at least as high as for the dissertation students

· Students were particularly pleased with the team-work element of the research

· Weaker students in particular appeared to gain significant learning benefits from team-work

· Problems arising from the ‘lumpy’ allocation of 60 credit points to the dissertation were significantly relieved

· Staff reported a huge increase in available time for their own research, particularly as a result of the vastly-reduced marking load.

In comparison with the experience of running a dissertation for large numbers of students, the RPS turned out to be an unqualified success. Indeed, an unexpected benefit of the RPS was in highlighting areas of weakness in the dissertation system, since these were more clearly exposed by the seminar/examination format.

Absolute Standard (Recommendations for Improvement)

Three areas for improvement were revealed. These are to be addressed for 2005/6. Each is summarised below.

1. Shortage of RPS subjects: with 105 students each allocated to 2 out 14 RPS subjects, it was inevitable that some students had to be allocated to subjects that were not of their choice. In a small number of cases this meant allocating students to subject areas in which their taught module preparation was general rather than specific.

· Examination marks moderation was carried out to ensure a level playing field in marks allocation (no ‘post-code lottery’ was allowed with respect to allocation to RPS groups).

· The increase in the number of effective staff for research supervision from 14 to around 20 should address this problem effectively.

2. Perceived discrepancies in RPS difficulty: students perceived some discrepancy of standards between RPS supervisors. This is no different than for a dissertation but the common examination format, the high degree of team-work and the allocation of students to different RPS groups meant that any perceived discrepancy was widely discussed and became a potential source for complaint.

· The discrepancies were more perceived than actual, but the moderation of exam marks effectively stifled all complaint and this practice will be continued.

· The assigned tasks within each RPS allow students to exercise considerable discretion as to the difficulty and complexity of the research they attempt. This is a desirable feature of research and it is not intended to remove it.

· An attempt will be made to devise a common examination paper for ECP302 (Research Skills) in 2005/6. Prior discussion of this is intended to promote greater standardisation of acceptable minimum standards of RPS difficulty.

3. Poor literature review: students could cope with most of their research tasks but the single greatest research weakness exposed by the examinations was the inability of many students to construct and present a critical review of published literature.

This has been found in the past to be the greatest weakness of dissertations, engendering a significant amount of cut-and-paste and other poor scholarship. This significant weakness was even more clearly exposed by the RPS because of the effective removal of the ‘cut-and-paste’ option.

· An additional first-semester optional module is being proposed for 2005/6, to be called Research Communication. This will focus explicitly on literature review skills in preparation for research and will be available to all students.

Lawrence Leger

December 2004