i send the question in detail and rubric and the proposal reading. please read
Assignment 3 - WHO Research Proposal Assignment 3— Research Proposal: Identifying an issue to be addressed by a qualitative research project In this assignment you will be considering how a central issue or theme you identified in your focus group could be addressed using a qualitative research approach in a larger study. Your task is as follows: You would like to undertake a pilot study of particular issue that arose from your preliminary focus group study. Your boss has approved this but you need to find start up funds. You have found a WHO grant that supports exploratory studies, but to convince them to support your project you need to explain what this problem or issue is, why you want to undertake this work and why you have chosen a qualitative approach. In particular, you should answer the following points in the format set out in the WHO grant application provided on FLO: · What research has been undertaken on this topic previously · What exactly is the problem or issue you want to address? · Why would a qualitative research approach be useful? · What other kinds of data would complement this approach? · What sample will you draw information from and where? · How will you access this sample? · What methods do you propose to use to gather your data? · How will you build rigour into the process of sampling and gathering the qualitative information? Your report should be about 2,500 words long. Criteria for Grading You will be assessed according to the following criteria; the extent to which: · the research question or issue is clear · the review of past studies is adequate for the proposal · the purpose of the research is coherent and compelling, especially in its justification of the need for a qualitative approach · the sample is well justified and the sampling procedure is clearly stated · the methods used to gather data or information are fully described, with evidence of ethically-responsible practices · credibility and rigour are fully explained · the proposal identifies the themes or concepts that arise from the analysis and connects these with the specific theoretical perspective chosen. Analysis should reflect a theoretical perspective (feminist, post structuralist etc). · theoretical perspectives are used to examine and comment on specific phenomena arising from the data. · the proposal is clearly written with accurate spelling, grammar and sentence construction · the proposal complies with normal academic standards of legibility and referencing (including recognised and consistent bibliographic details). PHCA9502 Assignment 1 Marking Guide Criterion Fail Pass Credit Distinction High distinction Provides and clear introduction and overview of the project. The research question or issue is well formulated and clearly stated Introduction is unclear or poorly executed. The research question is not provided or not formulated and clearly stated, and links poorly to the research methods and objectives. Provides a reasonable introduction but there is room for improvement. Research question is provided but is not well formulated or linked clearly and strongly to the methods and objectives. Provides a good introduction and overview. Research question is well formulated but could be clearer. Research question is linked to the methods and objectives A very good, clear overview of the project in the introduction. Research question is well formulated and clearly stated. Research question is linked to the methods chosen and the objectives of the study. Excellent overview of the project provided in the introduction. Research question is well formulated, links to the methods and objectives and is clearly stated. Cultural context and setting Description of and reflections on the cultural context or social setting of the proposed project and its implications for this study was not provided or was not addressed well Description of and reflections on the cultural context or social setting of the proposed project and its implications for this study was not addressed but there is room for improvement. Description of and reflections on the cultural context or social setting of the proposed project and its implications for this study addressed well Description of and reflections on the cultural context or social setting of the proposed project study and its implications for this study was addressed very well Description of and reflections on the cultural context or social setting of the proposed project and its implications for this study was addressed extremely well. The purpose of the research is coherent and compelling, especially in its justification of the need for a qualitative approach. Description of FG identifies key themes, develops these in conversation with the literature and privileges subjective meanings and words. The review of past studies is adequate for the proposal and there is evidence of wider reading. Objectives and outcomes are linked well. Does not address these or does so poorly Addresses some of these issues but not all and there is room for improvement. Addresses most of these issues well Addresses all of these issues well These issues are addressed in a sophisticated way. The sample and sampling procedures are justified, clearly explained and demonstrate a good understanding of sampling in QR. Sampling procedure is unclear and/or not justified. Demonstrates a poor understanding of sampling. Sampling procedure is evident but could be clearer or better justified. Demonstrates some understanding of sampling. Sampling procedure is clear but could be better justified. Demonstrates a reasonable understanding of sampling. Sampling procedure is clear and well justified. Demonstrates a good understanding of sampling. Excellent sampling procedure well justified, demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the issues. Methods chosen are qualitative, fully described and understood, with evidence of ethically responsible practices Methods, Methodology and reflections on ethics are not described or described very poorly. Conveys a poor understanding Methods, Methodology and reflections on ethics are described but poorly in some cases. Conveys some understanding Methods, Methodology and reflections on ethics are described. Conveys a reasonable understanding Methods, Methodology and reflections on ethics are described well. Conveys a good understanding. Excellent description of Methods, Methodology and reflections on ethics. Conveys a sophisticated understanding Demonstrates an understanding of how to enhance credibility and rigour Does not demonstrate an understanding of how to enhance rigour and credibility or does so in a very limited way. Does demonstrate an understanding of how to enhance rigour and credibility – room for improvement. Demonstrates a reasonable understanding of how to enhance rigour and credibility Demonstrates a good understanding of how to enhance rigour and credibility Demonstrates an excellent understanding of how to enhance rigour and credibility Clearly written expression with accurate spelling, grammar, sentence, and paragraph. Evidence of the author developing an argument (making a case for their project). Written expression is poor. It is difficult to understand the writer’s meaning. Syntax and grammatical rules are not adhered to. Argument is not or is very poorly developed, and not well supported. Written expression and syntax is such that the reader can understand the writer’s meaning and intention. Argument is poorly developed and not well supported. Written expression and syntax is such that the writer’s meaning is unambiguous. Evidence of an argument being developed and supported There is clarity in written expression, syntax, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction. An argument is clearly developed and supported. The paper presents a consistently high level of clear written expression, syntax, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction. An argument is developed and demonstrated throughout and is well supported. Complies with normal academic standards of referencing (in text and in the reference list). The paper has been thoroughly proof read. Meets the word count, + or - 10% Referencing does not meet accepted academic standards. Student Learning Centre support is needed. Referencing complies to an accepted system, but there are some errors. SLC support is needed. Referencing complies consistently to an accepted system with minimal errors. Referencing complies consistently to an accepted system. There are no errors. Referencing complies consistently to an accepted system in every way. The paper is very well presented. Comments Grade