Research Methodology Assignment Project

Write a paper (750-1,000 words) in which you present a clearly articulated argument for whether a qualitative or quantitative research methodology is the best approach to answer the potential dissertation research questions and address the problem statement you drafted in a previous course. Research Methodology Assignment Project

ORDER ORIGINAL, PLAGIARISM-FREE ESSAY PAPERS HERE

Include the following in your paper:

A literature-supported discussion identifying the critical attributes of the selected methodology (qualitative or quantitative).
A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the critical attributes of the selected methodology are the best or appropriate fit for the stated problem and research questions. Cite specific examples where a similar methodology was used to answer similar research questions or to address a similar problem statement.
A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the opposing methodology (qualitative or quantitative) is not appropriate for the study.
A concluding statement that clearly affirms the methodological choice (qualitative or quantitative). Research Methodology Assignment Project

Rubric_PSY860_wk5.xlsx

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
PSY-860	PSY-860-O500	Research Methodology	235.0
Criteria	Percentage	1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%)	2: Less Than Satisfactory (73.00%)	3: Satisfactory (82.00%)	4: Good (91.00%)	5: Excellent (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Criteria	100.0%
Literature-Supported Discussion Identifying the Critical Attributes of the Selected Methodology	10.0%	A literature-supported discussion identifying the critical attributes of the selected methodology is not presented.	A literature-supported discussion identifying the critical attributes of the selected methodology is included, but is incomplete or inaccurate.	A literature-supported discussion identifying the critical attributes of the selected methodology is presented, but is cursory. The literature used for support is outdated.	A literature-supported discussion identifying the critical attributes of the selected methodology is reasonable and scholarly, but some literature sources are outdated.	A literature-supported discussion identifying the critical attributes of the selected methodology is thoroughly presented. Sources are scholarly current or seminal research.
Literature-Supported Rationale That Clearly Articulates Why the Critical Attributes of the Selected Methodology Are a Best or Appropriate Fit for the Stated Problem and Research Questions	25.0%	A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the critical attributes of the selected methodology are a best or appropriate fit for the stated problem and research questions is not presented.	A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the critical attributes of the selected methodology are a best or appropriate fit for the stated problem and research questions is included, but is incomplete or illogical.	A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the critical attributes of the selected methodology are a best or appropriate fit for the stated problem and research questions is presented, but is cursory. The argument for the chosen methodology is weak. The literature used for support is outdated.	A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the critical attributes of the selected methodology are a best or appropriate fit for the stated problem and research questions is reasonable and scholarly, but some literature sources are outdated. The argument for the chosen methodology is reasonable.	A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the critical attributes of the selected methodology are a best or appropriate fit for the stated problem and research questions is thoroughly presented. Sources are scholarly current or seminal research. The argument for the chosen methodology is well articulated and persuasive.
Literature-Supported Rationale That Clearly Articulates Why the Opposing Methodology Is not Appropriate for the Study	25.0%	A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the opposing methodology is not appropriate for the study is not presented.	A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the opposing methodology is not appropriate for the study is included, but is incomplete or illogical.	A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the opposing methodology is not appropriate for the study is presented, but is cursory. The argument against the opposing methodology is weak. The literature used for support is outdated.	A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the opposing methodology is not appropriate for the study is reasonable and scholarly, but some literature sources are outdated. The argument for the chosen methodology is reasonable.	A literature-supported rationale that clearly articulates why the opposing methodology is not appropriate for the study is thoroughly presented. Sources are scholarly current or seminal research. The argument for the chosen methodology is well articulated and persuasive.
Concluding Statement That Clearly Affirms the Methodological Choice	10.0%	A concluding statement that clearly affirms the methodological choice is not presented.	A concluding statement that clearly affirms the methodological choice is included, but is illogical and does not capitalize on the positive and negative arguments made earlier in the paper.	A concluding statement that clearly affirms the methodological choice is presented, but is cursory. The statement is not firm and only vaguely capitalizes on the positive and negative arguments made earlier in the paper. The research used for support is outdated.	A concluding statement that clearly affirms the methodological choice is reasonable and scholarly, but some research sources are outdated. The statement is firm and reasonably capitalizes on the positive and negative arguments made earlier in the paper.	A concluding statement that clearly affirms the methodological choice is thoroughly presented. Sources are scholarly current or seminal research. The statement is firm and effectively capitalizes on the positive and negative arguments made earlier in the paper.
Synthesis and Argument	10.0%	No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources.	Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Synthesis of source information is present and is scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Thesis Development and Purpose	10.0%	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.	Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis.
Mechanics of Writing	5.0%	Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
APA Format	5.0%	Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used.	Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text citations are inconsistently used.	Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g. font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present.	Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g. headings and direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.	The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
Total Weightage	100%