ECON2060 Research Proposal
Instructions
Summary of task
The goal of this assessment is to write an original and interesting proposal for a research
project related to behavioural economics. You will come up with your own research question
and describe a practical and feasible method for how you would go about answering it. The
word limit is 1,500 words, which excludes the title page, abstract, tables and figures,
references, and any appendixes. This is a hard word limit, and you will be penalised for
exceeding it. Submission will be through Turnitin.
In addition to the detailed instructions below, please note two mandatory components to the
assessment that were introduced in 2023, and which must be followed by all students:
1. In the Related Literature section, students are required to reference, in a substantial
way, at least one academic journal article that has been published since 2023.
2. In the Method section, students must include at least one table or figure. This could
be a flow chart of the proposed experimental design or data collection process, or a
table of summary statistics on preliminary data. The table or figure must be labelled
and contain a full caption that provides a self-contained explanation of the table
or figure. (“Self-contained” means that a new reader could jump straight to the table
or figure and its caption, and still understand its meaning.)
We have uploaded some examples of high-scoring research proposals from past students.
Please note that some of these assignments were marked using the legacy marking criteria,
and as such did not include the above additional components.
Getting started
Your first step is to decide your topic, and specifically, your research question. For example,
it could be a test of a mainstream economics concept, an extension of a behavioural
economics concept, or the application of a behavioural economics theory to a novel
population or setting (such as a behavioural ‘nudge’). Typically (but not always), a good
question can be rewritten in the form “Does X cause Y?”, where X and Y are some
characteristics or outcomes of interest. Table 1 gives a summary of such rephrasing of the
questions in some of the papers discussed in this course.
There is quite some flexibility with the format of your proposal, and you should not feel
constrained by the guidelines below if you think you can do it better with your particular
topic. These guidelines are there to help improve the quality of your proposal, but if you can
write a high-quality paper in another way, you will not be penalised for unorthodoxy.
Likewise, feel free to include anything in an appendix that is not an appropriate fit in the
main document but that you do refer to in the text, such as specific experiment instructions, a
variable dictionary for an existing dataset, or other background information or material. Most
proposals will not need an appendix, but, seeing as it does not count for your word limit, you
may wish to exploit it for material that is relevant but not critical to your research proposal.
Regardless of your preferred format, however, your structure must include the following
sections:
1. Title page
2. Abstract
3. Introduction
4. Related literature (with mandatory recent journal article reference)
5. Method (with mandatory inclusion of a table or figure)
6. Conclusion
7. References
You may add other sections or subheadings for readability if you wish, but be careful of your
word limit.
Details of each section
1. Title page
Your title page should contain your proposal’s Title, your name and student number, date of
submission, your abstract, and an accurate word count (which excludes the title page,
abstract, tables and figures, references, and any appendixes).
2. Abstract
The abstract (placed on your title page) should be a four-sentence summary of your entire
research proposal, so make sure it includes what you believe are the absolute key ingredients
of your paper. The structure and content are flexible, but a typical format would be:
• First sentence: jump right into the topic or research question. (In some cases, you
might prefer a first sentence of motivation instead.) It would typically start with
something like “This research proposal…” followed by what it is you are proposing to
investigate/answer.
• Second sentence: State what the contribution is of your research proposal. What has
the previous literature proposed or found, and what will your proposal contribute to
fill the gaps in our knowledge? E.g. “While previous literature has found that/assumes
that/predicts that […], this proposal contributes to our knowledge of this issue by
testing whether […]”
• Third sentence: This should be about how you plan to answer your question. State
your method (or ‘empirical’ approach). E.g.: “I propose…” followed by the method,
e.g. “I propose to run a lab experiment in which I will test how changing X affects
people’s behaviour towards Y.” If there is a treatment/explanatory variable and an
outcome variable (and there should be!), or details of a specific context or sample that
is being tested, they should be clearly specified.
• Fourth sentence: Add any remaining critical details of the method, and/or include
the bare minimum of your analysis plan: what do you plan to test, how do you plan to
test it (e.g. a t-test between control and treatment groups, or a linear regression on
your data), and what conclusions will you draw depending on these results? E.g. “I
will run a t-test to determine whether there are differences in [Y] between the
treatment and control groups, and if the treatment group’s [Y] is significantly larger,
this would support the hypothesis that […]”.
3. Introduction
This section should be started on a new page to your title page/abstract, and should be short,
typically 1-3 paragraphs. Provide a motivation for the broad topic and why you think the
reader should be interested in it, and introduce any relevant economic theories (mainstream or
behavioural). You may wish to highlight where there is currently a gap in our knowledge
(which your research proposal will aim to fill). But don’t dwell for too long on setting up the
context; make sure your research question clearly appears by the end of the first paragraph. If
different school of academic thought predict different answers to your research question, you
may then want to spend 1-2 sentences outlining these predictions, and/or to briefly introduce
which method you are proposing to use to test these predictions.
In terms of your writing, try to avoid flowery language, embellishments, or ambiguities.
Write clearly and matter-of-factly. Academic papers are often considered ‘dry’ in style,
which can be true; the purpose of an academic paper is not to entertain with the writing, but
to convey the material as clearly as possible; how ‘interesting’ an academic paper is will be
typically judged on the worthiness of the topic and the quality of the research.
Here are some examples of introductions of behavioural economics papers that broadly
follow the structure that is expected of you.
Most children think of their potential future occupations in terms of what they will
be (firemen, doctors, etc.), not merely what they will do for a living. Many adults
also think of their job as an integral part of their identity. At least in the United
States, “What do you do?” has become as common a component of an
introduction as the anachronistic “How do you do?” once was, yet identity, pride,
and meaning are all left out from standard models of labour supply. This omission
is understandable: identity, pride, and meaning are difficult to quantify and are
thus hard to incorporate into the empirically driven field of labour economics.
In this article, we focus on minimal perceived meaning by the labour producing
force and investigate how it influences labour supply in controlled laboratory
experiments. Our intention is to compare situations with no meaning (or as low a
level of meaning as we can create) with situations having some small additional
meaning. Thus, our investigation will focus not on occupations highly endowed
with meaning, like medicine or teaching, but on the least-common denominator of
meaningfulness that is shared by virtually all compensated activities.
– Ariely, Kamenica and Prelec (2008)
Neoclassical models include several fundamental assumptions. While most of the
main tenets appear to be reasonably met, the basic independence assumption,
which is used in most theoretical and applied economic models to assess the
operation of markets, has been directly refuted in several experimental settings
(Knetsch 1989; Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler 1990; Bateman et al. 1997).
These experimental findings have been robust across unfamiliar goods, such as
irradiated sandwiches, and common goods, such as chocolate bars, with most
authors noting behaviour consistent with an endowment effect. Such findings have
induced even the most ardent supporters of neoclassical theory to doubt the
validity of certain neoclassical modelling assumptions. Given the notable
significance of the anomaly, it is important to understand whether the value
disparity represents a stable preference structure or if consumers’ behaviour
approaches neoclassical predictions as market experience intensifies.
In this study, I gather primary field data from two distinct markets to test whether
individual behaviour converges to the neoclassical prediction as market
experience intensifies.
– List (2003)
Charitable contributions in the United States were estimated to exceed $300
billion annually in 2007, 2008, and 2009. This is roughly $1000 for each person
in the US, a not insignificant amount. Given the reliance of charitable
organizations on these contributions, it is quite important to try to identify and
implement effective methods for enhancing the revenue received. There has been
some recent work on suggested donations to public radio, and some study of the
notion of paying-what-you-want as a pricing device. We extend both of these
notions to fund-raising in a restaurant venue, exploring whether the suggested
amount (if any) mattered with respect to the contributions raised.
Businesses like grocery stores and restaurants often ask customers (typically
through having a donation jar at the check-out register) to donate money to a
certain charity organization. One often sees a suggested certain donation level.
But there has been little by way of systematic and controlled study regarding how
the suggested donation level affects behaviour in this environment. Our research
question is to attempt to determine the optimal amount to suggest, or whether it is
better to make no suggestion.
– Charness and Cheung (2013)
Improving energy efficiency reduces costs for firms and mitigates CO2 emissions.
This is particularly important in the transportation sector, which is responsible
for approximately 25%–28% of greenhouse gas emissions in Western
industrialized countries (cf. EEA, 2018, EPA, 2018). Fuel accounts for around
40% of variable costs for transportation companies. We conducted an analysis to
determine if loss aversion helps motivate drivers to drive in a fuel-efficient
manner. If successful, this could reduce fuel consumption by about 22%.
– Hoffman and Thommes (2020)
Nudging has been found to affect human behavior across a wide range of
domains. In particular, it has been used to improve the payment morale of citizens
when they owe money to public institutions. While the traditional view (Allingham
and Sandmo, 1972) considered citizens’ tax compliance as a matter of audits and
harsh fines, it is by now well understood that tax morale is also a very important
factor for compliance (Kirchler, 2007). In fact, nudging has been frequently
applied to improve tax morale, even though with mixed results. In the realm of
taxation, taxpayers are very likely to anticipate, however, that the government will
ultimately enforce correct tax payments, which is why nudges might have a good
chance to work. In other situations, however, public institutions may not want to
enforce the collection of citizens’ payments for social or ethical reasons. Whether
or not nudging also works in such a setting and whether it can have persistent
effects even after abolishing the nudge again are the key questions of this paper.
– Sutter, Rosenberger and Sutter (2020)
4. Related literature
Please make sure that you clearly relate your research question to the existing academic
literature. What are the possible answers to your research question that have been discussed
in past studies? What papers answer a similar question to yours, and what do they find? (For
example, if you are researching “Do tennis players exhibit loss aversion?”, you would want to
cite studies that investigate whether other sporting players exhibit loss aversion). It is possible
that closely related studies come from fields other than economics, such as psychology or
even more specialised fields (for example, in the previous example, papers from sports
journals might be relevant). But when in doubt, prioritise economics papers.
What you must definitely avoid is proposing a study that has already been carried out. So,
make sure that your literature search is thorough. Google Scholar is the best place to start,
and once you find a close paper, use the “Cited by” feature to filter by recent, related papers.
A common question is “How many papers should I cite?” This is hard to answer other than
the general comment “The most important ones, but no more”. While it is important not to
omit any critical paper, it is equally important not to spread yourself too thin such that you
cite many papers but with insufficient detail for the relevance to be clear to the reader. Here
are some types of examples.
• If your proposal is an extension of one specific paper, then you may justify citing only
this paper, so that you can go into deep detail about this paper and what your
extension contributes to it. For example, you may be adding an original extension to
the design of Niederle and Vesterlund’s (2007) competitiveness experiment.
• If your extension has a very similar design to one study but applies it in a different
domain – for example, you apply the Apesteguia and Palacios-Heurta (2010) paper
about soccer penalty kicks to rugby union – you would want to (at least) cite both this
paper and the most relevant paper about psychological pressure in your new domain
(rugby union).
• If your research proposal tries to reconcile two or more papers that reached
contradictory conclusions, then you would want to describe these papers in detail (and
you may not need to cite more). For example, Albrecht and Smerdon’s (2022) design
references three contradictory theories in its review, and cites the main papers for
each theory.
• If your research proposal covers several topics – for example, you are comparing
whether confirmation bias or the sunk cost fallacy can best explain why people don’t
sell their crypto investments – you may need to cite more papers (in this case, ones on
both biases in general, and also on broad psychological biases in the crypto market).
Many research topics fall into this category.
At the end of this section, you should state in one sentence what the specific contribution of
your research would be to this literature. What is the gap that you are filling in the academic
landscape?
Finally, a reminder that this section contains a mandatory component: You must reference,
in a substantial way, at least one academic journal article that has been published since
2023.
5. Method
This should be the longest section of your proposal, roughly half of your allocated word
count. Typically, the method for your research proposal will be either an experiment (lab or
field) or an empirical study of existing data. Your proposed method must be: (a) able to
answer your research question, (b) practical, and (c) ethical. Table 1 gives examples of the
methods used in some of the papers discussed in this course.
If you choose an experiment, your proposal must include the following details:
• The experimental design, including the type and number of subjects, the groups, and
how you will administer the treatment(s)
• The experimental procedure. This can be in broad terms, but all critical information
must be included such that another researcher who reads your proposal would be able
to implement the experiment you describe
o You may wish to check the experimental papers assigned as readings in this
course for examples of how to describe the experimental design and
procedures.
If you choose an empirical study of existing data, your proposal must include the following
details:
• The source of the data (e.g. “OECD PISA data wave 2015”), or how you would plan
to collect it (e.g. “Scrape all Champion’s League football games from 2021-22 from
the UEFA website”)
• The key explanatory variable(s) (this would be the ‘X’ variable) and outcome
variables(s) (the ‘Y’ variable) from the data
• An explanation of how you plan to address any potential statistical biases such as
selection bias in your analysis. This may involve describing additional control
variables that you propose to include in your analysis of the data. If your design will
make use of a natural experiment, clearly detail the source of the randomisation and
why it means that your proposed method will accurately answer your research
question.
o For example, in Apesteguia and Palacios-Huerta (2010), the method of
choosing which football side gets the first penalty kick is random, which
prevents selection bias. In Gong (2015), the author made use of an existing
program (the VCT) that randomly assigned HIV testing.
No matter which method you use, you should clearly describe your treatment variable (or
variables; the ‘X’) and outcome variable (or variables; the ‘Y’).
Next, you should state how you plan to analyse the (experimental or natural) data, including
any statistical tests that you propose to use (such as a t-test). If there are other variables that
are important in your dataset (either an existing data set or one you will collect from your
experiment), describe them and how you will use them.
Finally, you should clearly state your hypotheses as they relate to the variables and tests. This
will include any sub-sample effects (also known as “heterogeneous effects”), e.g., does your
effect differ for males and females? (and how would you test this)?
A reminder that this section also contains a mandatory component: You must include at
least one table or figure.
6. Conclusion
Your conclusion should be short (1 paragraph). You may wish to describe what you will
conclude about your hypotheses or the motivating theories depending on which way your
results turn out, as well as any limitations of your research or risks for its implementation
(and how these might be mitigated). You should also describe the implications that you think
your results might have, for either existing economic theories or for policy-makers / industry
/ other relevant groups.
7. References
Your research proposal should be fully (and correctly) referenced, both within the text and by
including a full bibliography. You are free to use any of the standard referencing styles so
long as you are consistent (see UQ’s reference guide). To save time and guarantee accuracy,
especially if you use a lot of references, you may wish to use a referencing software like
Zotero or Endnote. For instance, Zotero (free!) can be installed as a web browser extension,
which is very handy because once you find a paper online, you can import it into your Zotero
library with one click. It also has a Word extension, meaning that you can import your library
references into your Word document and also add an automated bibliography of references
that updates by itself. (If you don’t use many references, it’s just as easy or easier to do things
manually.)
Submission:
Submit via the Turnitin link on Blackboard by the specified deadline. Requests for the
granting of extensions must be made online via
https://my.uq.edu.au/node/218/2#2 with supporting documentation before the submission due
date/time. If an extension is approved, the new agreed date for submission will be noted on
the application and the student notified through their student email. Extensions cannot exceed
the number of days you suffered from a medical condition, as stated on the medical
certificate.
If your proposal is submitted late without an approved extension, a penalty of 10% of the
maximum possible mark will be deducted per day for up to 7 calendar days, at which point
any submission will not receive any marks unless an extension has been approved. Each 24-
hour block is recorded from the time the submission is due. (See section 5.3 of the ECP for
more details.)
Criteria & Marking:
Criteria Maximum possible marks
Presentation
• Clarity and quality of written expression (10)
• Referencing (5)
15
Research Topic
• Originality (5)
• Clarity and justification of research question (5)
10
Literature and economic concepts
• Identification and critical use of literature (10)
• Understanding and explanation of relevant economic
concepts (5)
15
Research Methods
• Appropriateness and feasibility of proposed method
(5)
• Suitability to test a causal claim while avoiding
selection and other biases (5)
• Description of method, including setting, sample,
variables, design, procedures (20)
• Hypotheses and analysis plan (10)
40
Implications and limitations
• Implications of research (5)
• Limitation/risks of research proposal (5)
10
Recent Reference
• Substantially referenced at least one academic article
since the required date (5)
5
Table/Figure
• Labelled table/figure with self-contained explanation
in the caption (5)
5
Total 100
Table 1
Paper Title Research Question Method
Goldstein et al.
(2008)
"Do More Expensive
Wines Taste Better?"
Do higher prices reflect
higher quality for wine?
Field
experiment
Gneezy and
Rustichini
(2000a)
"A Fine is a Price Do higher costs always
reduce behaviour?
Field
experiment
Ariely, Kamenica
and Prelec (2008)
"Man's search for
meaning: The case of
Legos"
Does perceived meaning
for a worker’s work
increase or decrease their
reservation wage?
Lab
experiment
Apesteguia and
Palacios-Huerta
(2010)
"Psychological Pressure
in Competitive
Environments:
Evidence from a
Randomized Natural
Experiment"
Do psychological factors
affect optimal decision-
taking among experts in
competitive
environments?
Empirical
study
(natural field
experiment)
List (2003) "Does Market
Experience Eliminate
Market Anomalies?"
Does Market Experience
Eliminate Market
Anomalies?
Field
experiment
Post van den
Assem Baltussen
Thaler (2008)
"Deal or No Deal?
Decision Making under
Risk in a Large-Payoff
Game Show"
Do previous outcomes
affect future choices in
risky situations?
Empirical
study
(natural field
experiment)
Gong (2015) "HIV Testing and Risky
Sexual Behaviour"
Does HIV test
information increase
risky sexual behaviour?
Empirical
study
(natural field
experiment)
Niederle and
Vesterlund (2007)
"Do women shy away
from competition? Do
men compete too much?"
Does gender affect
competitiveness?
Lab
experiment
Cohn, Maréchal,
Tannenbaum and
Zünd (2019)
"Civic honesty around
the globe"
Do higher incentives
increase for dishonesty
lead to more dishonest
behaviour?
Field
experiment
Bertrand
Mullainathan
(2004)
"Are Emily and Greg
More Employable Than
Lakisha and Jamal? A
Field Experiment on
Labor Market
Discrimination"
Do employers exhibit
(taste-based) hiring
discrimination?
Field
experiment
Albrecht and
Smerdon (2022)
"The Social Capital
Effects of Refugee
Resettlement on Host
Communities"
Does social contact with
refugees increase or
decrease intergroup
trust?
Field
experiment
Appendix A: Marking Criteria and Standards
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Presentation (15)
Clarity and quality
of written
expression (10)
Clarity of expression
excellent. Consistently
conventional grammar
and spelling: professional
writing style.
Language mainly fluent.
Grammar and spelling
mainly accurate.
Meaning apparent but
language not always
fluent. Grammar and
expression weak.
Language, grammar and
spelling do not adhere to
academic conventions.
Meaning of what has been
written not always clear.
Language, spelling and
grammar contain
numerous errors.
Meaning of what has been
written is unclear.
Referencing (5) Referencing clear and
consistently accurate.

Referencing mostly
accurate.

Referencing has minor
inconsistencies and
inaccuracies.
Referencing has many
inconsistencies and
inaccuracies.
Referencing seriously
inaccurate.
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Research Topic (10)
Originality (5)
An original research
question related to
behavioural economics.
A largely original research
question related to
behavioural economics.
Research question is
similar to what has
already been done or is
loosely related to
behavioural economics.
A behavioural economics
research question is
unoriginal, or an original
research question
unrelated to behavioural
economics.
Research question is
unoriginal and unrelated
to behavioural economics.
Clarity and
Justification of
research question
(5)
Clear research question.
Compelling justification of
why the research question
is worth pursuing.
Clear research question.
Reasonable justification of
why the research question
is worth pursuing.
Reasonably clear research
question. General and
loose justification of why
the research question is
worth pursuing.
Limited or vague research
question and justification
of why the research
question is worth
pursuing.
Unclear or no research
question and/or
justification of the
research topic.
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Literature and
economic concepts
(15)
Critical use of
literature (10)
Research ideas developed
from a critical appraisal of
relevant and authoritative
Relevant literature
appraised and used to
Some attempt to build
proposal on based on
Some attempt to relate
the proposal to the
Little or no attempt to
relate the proposal to the
literature.
literature (i.e. published in
leading journals).
develop some research
ideas in the process.
understanding of relevant
literature.
literature but no attempt
to be critical.
Understanding of
relevant economic
concepts (5)
Demonstrated sound
knowledge of relevant
economic concepts
underlying research.
Demonstrated knowledge
of relevant economic
concepts.
Some knowledge of
relevant economic
concepts and an attempt
made to apply the
concept to the research
topic.
Some evidence of
understanding of the
economic concepts
related to the topic and
some attempt to apply
them.
Very limited
understanding of
economics relevant to the
proposed topic.
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Research Methods
(40)
Appropriateness
and feasibility of
proposed method
(5)
Appropriate method
proposed for the given
research question. Clear
description of the how the
potential method can be
used to achieve research
objectives. Methodology
is feasible and practical.
Proposed modelling is
clear and appropriate.
Strategy of analysis
plausible and
demonstrates
understanding of the
theoretical elements
involved.
Sensible method
proposed. Indication of
feasible plan on using the
method to achieve
research objectives. Minor
feasibility or suitability
concerns.
Proposed modelling is
appropriate, though some
modelling aspects may
remain unclear. Strategy
of analysis suitable for the
type of model proposed.
Clear proposed
methodology, but
potential flaws in its
suitability and/or
concerns about feasibility
of the method to achieve
research objectives.
A possible model is
outlined but details are
unclear. Strategy of
analysis may work but it is
unclear how theoretical
elements are related.
Methodology is either
unclear or clearly
unsuitable for the
research question.
Feasibility of the plan is
doubtful for achieving
research objectives.
Some attempt at
developing a plan of
modelling. Strategy of
analysis unlikely to work
except under restrictive
assumptions.
No feasible method or
completely unsuitable for
the research question.
No logical modelling
proposed. No or wishful
strategy of analysis.
Suitability to test a
causal claim while
Proposed method is very
suitable for testing the
causal claim and avoids
Proposed method is
mostly suitable for testing
the causal claim and
Proposed method is
somewhat suitable, but
not the most suitable for
Proposed method is not
suitable for testing the
causal claim and will most
No proposed method or
clearly flawed method.
avoiding selection
and other biases (5)
selection and other
biases.
would avoid most
concerns around selection
and other biases.
testing the causal claim
and invokes concerns
around selection and
other biases.
likely lead to selection and
other biases.
Description of
method, including
setting, sample,
variables, design,
procedures (20)
A clear description of the
method that contains all
key details and
descriptions for another
researcher to easily
implement the proposal.
A mainly clear description
of the method that
contains nearly all key
details and descriptions
for another researcher to
easily implement the
proposal, but requires
more or better
explanation in one or two
of: setting, variables,
design and procedures.

Description is thorough
but at times vague or
confusing, and would
require more or better
explanation in two or
more of: setting,
variables, design and
procedures, in order for
another researcher to
implement the proposal.
Description is incomplete
or confusing, and would
require more or better
explanation in multiple
categories and significant
improvement for another
researcher to implement
the proposal.
Description is largely
omitted or inappropriate,
and it is largely impossible
for another research to
implement the proposal
from the given details.
Hypotheses and
analysis plan (10)
Hypotheses are clearly
stated and correctly
specified. Appropriate
statistical tests (or
regression equations) are
stated along with key
parameters and details,
and how the results will
be interpreted. If
included, a power analysis
is correctly conducted.
Hypotheses, appropriate
statistical tests, and key
parameters are mostly
clear and mostly correctly
stated. A discussion of
how the results will be
interpreted is included.
Efforts have been made to
describe the hypotheses
and statistical tests, with
some flaws or inaccurate
descriptions. Some
indication given about
interpretation of results,
possibly with flaws.
Efforts have been made to
describe the hypotheses,
the statistical tests and/or
the interpretation of the
results, but either these
have been done poorly
with large flaws, or one of
these is missing entirely.
At least two out of three
items (hypotheses,
statistical tests and
interpretation of the
results) are missing or
clearly incorrect.
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Implications and
limitations (10)
Implication of
research (5)
Key issues and points in
about implications of
potential results from
research raised.
Some key points about
implications of potential
results from research
identified.
Some general implications
of potential results from
research noted.
Some vague or doubtful
implications of potential
results suggested.
Very limited or no
indication of implications
of potential results from
research.
Limitations/risk of
research proposal
(5)
Limitations/risk of
research proposal
identified, with
suggestions on how these
might be mitigated.
Limitations/risk of
research proposal
identified.
Some awareness of
limitation/risk of research
proposal, but the issues
mentioned are non-
specific.
Some awareness of
limitation/risk of research
proposal, but no
indication of their
sources.
No or little consideration
of limitations/risk of
research proposal.
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Reference (5)
Mandatory
component: Recent
reference (5)
Appropriately referenced,
in a substantial way, at
least one academic
journal article that has
been published since the
required date.
Referenced, at least
superficially, at least one
academic journal article
that has been published
since the required date.
No reference to any
academic journal article
that has been published
since the required date.
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Table/Figure (5)
Mandatory
component:
Table/figure (5)
At least one table or
figure has been included.
The table or figure is
labelled and contain a full
caption that provides a
self-contained explanation
of the table or figure.
At least one table or
figure has been included.
The table or figure is
labelled but the caption is
not self-contained.
No table or figure
included.
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0