Is there anything you find confusing?
- There were a few things that I found confusing in the proposal instructions. My first question was concerning the submission section. What do we do about SafeAssign if it does highlight our reference page and reports a high percentage from the reference page. I was reading the final page about the submission and wondered should we be concerned about plagiarism based on the percentage alone or should we be more concerned on the content that SafeAssign highlighted within the paper, like if it flagged a portion of the body text versus a reference page.
- The second thing was I noticed in method of measurement section, where it mentioned that often similar tools are used by researchers. Does this mean we should utilize similar tools within our proposal? I was curious whether we could take the extra step further and try to develop our own questions if we were going to utilize something like a survey or questionnaire.
- Lastly, I was not sure if there was a minimum page requirement that we had to meet for our paper. Is there a certain page or word count that we should meet at minimum for the proposal?
What you think will be most challenging, or what you think might be most fun about the assignment.
- The challenge is finding ways to make my study original because so much research has been done on this topic before. I had to change my original research idea as I read more into similar studies. Many had already gone the route that I was thinking of taking, where I looked further into how individuals felt towards automation in the workplace. I decided that something different would be to see if an individual’s income influences their perceptions about automation in the workplace whether they fear it or are more accepting of it. My general idea is that maybe income plays a role into one’s perception of automation whether they are more accepting of it or less accepting of its integration into the workplace. I think this will be the fun part to try and figure out how to set up.
- I am still figuring out whether the study would benefit from a qualitative or quantitative approach. There is also a mixed methods approach, which would take more time, but it could bring more insight on whether income played a part in individual perceptions towards automation or had no impact at all.
Thanks for all of your comments, Kaitlyn, and feel free to bring more or ask for clarification in class on Monday if you can join us remotely.
I’ll copy some of what you asked below so I can best answer:
1) SafeAssign, you provided the exact answer I would give: “Be more concerned on the content that SafeAssign highlighted within the paper” instead of the percentage number. Things like whether it’s a reference, a quote, and has proper attribution are all things to consider. The percentage of flagged content is not.
2) Creating your own survey: You are allowed to do so, but I would not recommend it. It’s a lot easier to prove reliability and validity for survey questions that have been used previously by other studies that had solid, published results.
3) Page length: I addressed that when I posted examples because those are also the best examples of what page lengths would be appropriate: https://ltblogs.fhsu.edu/inf405master/2021/04/18/example-research-proposals/
Observations:
1) Intriguing study idea! Changing a research question once you’ve read the previous research is exactly what you should find yourself doing. First, find inspiration in what you generally want to know. Then, see what’s already known and what isn’t. Finally, develop a question that can help find those unknown answers.
2) See my second answer above. What studies examined perceptions toward automation? Which do you think were the best studies that addressed it? How did they address it? You should also consider examing research that examines just what income level may influence, even if no one has brought that to the automation issue before.
Sounds like you are definitely on the right path! The Week 9 Blog post should help you get a little more focused.