Part 1. A critical analysis of two research papers chosen by the student in her/his topic area and agreed to by the course convener. The papers should address research questions relevant to the student's intended area of research. The discussion for each paper will be evaluated according to how the following points are addressed:

A. The Context of the Paper

• Name the research community that the paper addresses. Name the sub-group(s) in this community within which the research can best be classified.

• Name one of the key researchers in this sub-group (apart from the authors of your paper). Name one of the most important journals or conferences in which this sub-group publishes (apart from the place where your paper was published). You need to name different researchers and publications for each paper even if the papers are from the same area.

• How highly do you rate the conference/journal in which the paper is published? How highly do you rate the author(s) of the paper. How highly do you rate the institution(s) where the author(s) are based? Explain the basis of these evaluations.

B. The Details of the Paper

• Name the research questions addressed by the paper: Were they clearly stated? What were they?

• How well justified is the research? Is it significant? Is the outcome of the research worth discovering? Why? Why not?

• Connections with existing research: Is there a clear discussion of the existing work in the area? How does this work connect to the paper under review? Is this made clear?

• Was the research based on any theory? Was this theory stated? If not, can you uncover an implicit theory? How was this theory applied?

• What research paradigms were followed? What assumptions were used? Was any of this discussed? If not, can you identify the implicit paradigm and assumptions? Should this have been discussed in the paper?

• What research method was adopted to conduct the research project?

• The rigour of the research design: Does the research clearly address the research problems you have identified? What answers does the research provide? Are these answers backed up with sufficient evidence? Has too much been claimed? Has something been missed?

• Relevance to other researchers and/or practitioners including contribution to theory and/or IT practice.

• Correct referencing - Has the paper miss some important references in the field?

Part 2. Developing a research question from a problem emerging from the literature discussed in Part 1. The discussion on the following will be evaluated.

• The topic of the research problem clearly stated.

• The area of IT defined demonstrating an understanding.

• Research question clearly stated.

• Significance of the problem clearly stated and justified.

• Aims of research clearly stated and explained.

• Relevant literature referenced.

• The research outcomes discussed.

• Contribution to theory and/or IT practice discussed.

• Correct referencing (APA or IEEE).

Up to 5 marks will be deducted if there are problems with the following:

• Presentation (including word length, expression, word choice, spelling, grammar, punctuation, use of acronyms, spelling of tutor's name, title page not included, page numbers missing, poor word processing in general).

• Organisation of contents.

• Consistent and correct referencing.

• Direct quotes - the exact words written by somebody - included in the word count.
Late submissions: marks will be deducted according to university policy.