23PSP114 Research Methods and Skills for Sport Managers Assignment 2

Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

23PSP114

Research Methods and Skills for Sport Managers

Assignment 2

· Due date: Friday 12th January 2024

· Due time: 13.00

· Value: 70% of your overall module grade

· Word limit: 3000 words (excluding title and references)

Students are required to report findings from two short secondary data analyses, one qualitative and one quantitative.

PART ONE - QUALITATIVE

For the qualitative secondary analysis, students can choose ONE of the following options:

(a) Conduct and report on a media analysis of the news articles provided reporting on the environmental challenges of hosting the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The broad aim of the analysis is to explore how media outlets are reporting environmental challenges. Links to the raw data are provided in a separate file on the Learn page.

(b) Conduct and report on a thematic analysis of the 20-minute interview with trans-athlete Emily Bridges. The broad aim of the analysis is to explore how the participant experiences her situation from her own perspective. Raw data are provided in a separate file on the Learn page.

PART TWO - QUANTITATIVE

For the quantitative secondary analysis, students must perform and interpret a relevant statistical test for ONE of the following tasks using the Active People Survey data provided:

(a)   Explore if there is an association between working (‘working’) and participation in any sport (‘anysport’) (nominal variables)

(b)   Explore the correlation between satisfaction with facilities (‘sportfac’) and the number of sports undertaken (‘numsport’). (ordinal and scale variables)

Suggested Structure

For guidance only, it is suggested that your secondary analyses could be structured as follows:

PART ONE – SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE DATA (2000 words)

Introduction and background (about 250 words)

Briefly state the aim of the analysis and include more specific research questions if you feel that it’s appropriate. Situated the analysis within some relevant literature.

Methodology (about 300 words)

Outline how the analysis was undertaken, signpost the reader to the supplementary material and state how the findings are presented in the next section.

Findings (about 1200 words)

This section will normally be split into 2, 3 or 4 sub sections reflecting the different issues that have emerged from the analysis. This is your space to report what your analysis has revealed. You should present data (quotes or screenshots) together with your interpretation of that data. Links to literature and concepts should be made.

Conclusion (about 250 words)

Summarise what your analysis shows in simple terms and the mention limitations or what other research is needed in order to know more.

PART TWO – SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA (1000 words)

Introduction (about 200 words)

Briefly state the aims of the analysis and include more specific research questions if you feel that it’s appropriate. Outline how the analysis was undertaken and signpost the reader to the data set that was used.

Results (about 200 words)

Use this section to present the results of the analysis that you have undertaken. You will be expected to clearly specify the hypotheses investigated and state whether you reject or accept the null hypothesis. Please also explain your decision in referring to relevant statistical information such as significance level. You must also state the significance that your test found.

Discussion (about 400 words)

In this section, should you discuss what these results mean. This includes interpreting the results, highlighting limitations and suggesting what readers can take away from it. As such, links to literature and related concepts or theories should be included.

Conclusion (about 200 words)

Summarise what your analysis shows in simple terms and mention the limitations or suggest what other research is needed in order to know more.

REFERENCES

Please provide a reference list using Harvard referencing style.

SUPPLEMENTRARY MATERIAL

Please provide supplementary material as evidence that you have conducted both analyses diligently and by yourself. For the qualitative secondary analysis, this could include, for example, screen shots of your raw data file, data coding, and thematic mapping. For the quantitative secondary analysis, this could include, for example, screen shots of your testing within SPSS.

What criteria will be used to mark the assignment?

The usual University criteria will be used to mark the assignment (see table 1 below).

Table 1. Marking Criteria (Pass mark at masters level is 60%)

70% +

60%-69%

50% - 59%

40% - 49%

>40%

Knowledge/ Understanding

30%

(21+)

· An advanced and insightful knowledge and understanding of the key concepts and their relevance to Sport Management

· Ability to select, organize, use and apply this knowledge accurately, perceptively and creatively to the assignment tasks.

(18- 21 marks)

· A good and systematic knowledge and understanding of the key concepts and their relevance to Sport Management

· Ability is shown to select, organize, use and apply this accurately to the assignment tasks.

(15 – 18 marks)

· An adequate knowledge and understanding of the key concepts and their relevance to Sport Management

· The ability is generally shown to select, organize and use this appropriately to the assignment tasks.

(12 – 15 marks)

· Some knowledge and understanding of the key concepts and their relevance to Sport Management

· A limited ability is shown to select, organize, use and apply this to the assignment tasks.

(12 marks)

· V.little knowledge

· Not addressed question

Critical Thinking/ Analysis

30%

· Critically, rigorous and creative thinking about relevant issues

· Ability to apply knowledge to the Sport Management context convincingly

· Very well informed and balanced judgments/evaluation based on reading and research

· Decisions justified and rationale given

· Ability is shown to think critically about issues –(analyze /evaluate/interpret)

· Good attempts to apply knowledge to the Sport Management context convincingly

· Make well informed judgments, as applicable.

· Ability is shown to think critically - (analyze/evaluate/interpret) about a few issues

· Appropriately informed judgments and some attempt to apply knowledge

· Tendency to be descriptive – don’t justify/explain why the decision/choice/point has been made

· Some ability is shown to think critically(analyze/evaluate/interpret) about a few issues

· Make judgments but at a basic level (lack of insight, reflection and explanation/justification).

· Descriptive not analytical

· V.little criticality

· No informed judgements

· Inaccuracies in the judgments that are made

Reading/ Research

20%

(14 marks)

· Strong evidence of independent reading/research from a wide range of high-quality sources.

· Evidence is used critically and selectively to support the answer

(12 – 14 marks)

· Evidence of independent reading/research from a number of sources.

· A good range of appropriate reading/research is used to support the answer.

(10-12 marks)

· Some independent reading/research from different sources.

· Some appropriate reading/research is used to support the answer.

(8 – 10 marks)

· Very limited range of references

· Reliance on low quality/journalistic sources (Websites and Media articles)

(8 marks)

· Little or no reading evident

Presentation/ Communication

20%

· Engaging and shows originality

· Very well written/ presented

· Uses sophisticated language but makes points clearly.

· Very well structured and organized.

· Assignment is clearly written/ presented

· Well-structured and organized

· Reader can follow the flow of the discussion

· Very few errors in presentation.

· Presentation and communication is generally adequate.

· Generally clear and appropriately structured and organized.

· There are some errors in presentation.

· Presentation poor quality (Spelling errors, poorly formatted)

· Communication is weak – points not clear, confusing

· Structure and organization issues – not logical, hard to follow, doesn’t flow

· Poor with numerous errors:


2024-01-06