Research Methods Assignment Individual assignment 2| Weight: 80% of the module grade 1.    Assignment Overview Prepare a research report that implements the main steps of an aviation-focused empirical study. Collect and analyse primary data using

Institute of Applied Research & Technology

 Research Methods Assignment

Individual assignment 2| Weight: 80% of the module grade

1.    Assignment Overview

Prepare a research report that implements the main steps of an aviation-focused empirical study. Collect and analyse primary data using either a quantitative or a mixed-methods design suited to your research title. This is a module assignment and research report.

Build on Assignment 1: revise the introduction and literature review in response to the instructor’s comments, then complete the methodology, data collection, analysis and reporting. Maintain a clear connection between the research problem, questions, methods, results and conclusions.

2.    Learning Outcomes

1. Develop a strong commitment to ethical integrity in research practices.

2. Demonstrate advanced skills in applying the scientific method to formulate research questions, develop hypotheses, and design rigorous studies.

3. Demonstrate the ability to choose among qualitative, quantitative, and mixed research methodologies and guiding research decisions effectively.

4. Conduct a comprehensive and critical assessment of existing research literature, identifying gaps and areas for further investigation.

5. Demonstrate a high-level expertise in research design, including selecting appropriate methodologies, data collection instruments, and procedures for ensuring research validity and reliability.

6. Develop expertise in data analysis using R and SPSS to extract meaningful insights.

7. Master the art of scientific writing and presentation at an advanced level, ensuring the clarity, coherence, and impact of research communication.

8. Acquire advanced proficiency in effectively managing research projects, including resource allocation, timeline adherence, and project coordination.

3.    Research pathway and expectations

Quantitative pathway

Collect numerical primary data, normally using a structured survey or another justified instrument. Use SPSS for data preparation, descriptive and appropriate inferential analysis, and AMOS for an appropriate measurement and structural model. Align the analysis with the study questions, hypotheses, sample and quality of the data.

Mixed methods pathway

Collect both quantitative and qualitative primary data. Analyse the quantitative strand using SPSS and AMOS and analyse qualitative data using a transparent technique such as thematic analysis. Explain why both strands are needed, how they are sequenced or combined, and how their findings are integrated to answer an overall research question. A few unsupported quotations or open-ended responses alone do not demonstrate an adequately developed mixed-methods study.

Plan an appropriately scoped, feasible study. AMOS analyses require a defensible model and adequate data; do not fabricate results or force an unsuitable model. If access, sample size or model assumptions prevent a planned analysis, report the problem and seek instructor guidance; explain any approved adjustment and its limitations.

Ethical declaration before data collection

All students, whether undertaking quantitative or mixed-methods research, must complete and submit the EAU research ethics declaration form before collecting any primary data. Discuss the proposal with your supervisor and obtain their agreement to submit it for ethical clearance before confirming this in the form. Provide accurate project and student details, describe the study and risk level, and explain informed consent, confidentiality, data security and any relevant safeguards.

Attach the relevant supporting documents requested by the form, such as the research proposal or protocol, participant information and consent materials, recruitment text, questionnaire or interview guide, and any applicable organisational permissions or external ethics documents. Complete the declaration truthfully and retain a copy or submission confirmation for your records.

Form link: https://form.jotform.com/250628910597465

Submitting the form is not the same as receiving ethical approval. Obtain any required ethical clearance and separate organisational or data-access permissions before the relevant recruitment or data collection begins. Follow any conditions of approval and report material changes or incidents as required. Describe the ethics process in the methodology and include evidence of submission and, where applicable, approval in an appendix, with sensitive information removed.

4.    Required report structure

Use the following order. Number the main sections and provide a clear hierarchy of subheadings.

Cover page

Include the research title, student name and ID, module code and name, instructor, submission date, selected pathway, and report word count. The title should identify the central variables or phenomenon, population and aviation setting; it should reflect the completed design without claiming unsupported findings.

Abstract

In approximately 150–250 words, summarise the problem, aim, design, population and sample, data collection, principal analysis, key findings and conclusions. For mixed methods, include both strands and the main integrated insight. Write the abstract after completing the report; do not include citations or results that are not reported in the body.

Table of contents

List the report headings and subheadings with accurate page numbers. Include lists of tables and figures if appropriate, and number all tables and figures consistently.

1 Introduction

Revise Assignment 1 in response to the instructor’s feedback. Provide the background and aviation context, practical and scholarly problem, evidenced research gap, rationale, aim, objectives, research questions, conceptual model and hypotheses where applicable. State significance, scope, delimitations and key definitions. Ensure the final wording reflects the study actually conducted and briefly map the report structure.

2 Critical literature review

Revise and update the Assignment 1 review in response to feedback. Organise it by concepts, theories, relationships or debates; define the constructs and critically compare findings, methods, settings and limitations. Explain the theoretical basis of the conceptual model and hypotheses, and synthesise the precise gap addressed by the study. Use at least ten relevant peer-reviewed articles, normally published within the five years before submission; justified seminal sources may be older. Cite sources consistently using Harvard style.

3 Methodology

Explain what you did, why it was appropriate and how another researcher could understand the process. Distinguish the intended plan from what happened in practice.

·       Research approach and design: justify the quantitative or mixed-methods design, its underlying rationale, setting, unit of analysis and alignment with each research question. For mixed methods, specify the design, sequence, relative emphasis, strand connection and planned integration.

·       Population and sampling: define the target population, eligibility, sampling frame and recruitment method. Explain access, sampling strategy, sample-size rationale and actual achieved sample. For mixed methods, justify the sample and selection for each strand, including any selection of interviewees from survey respondents.

·       Instruments and measures: describe the questionnaire and the source of each scale, construct, response format and any adaptations or translations. Map questions to variables and objectives. For mixed methods, describe the interview, focus group or open-ended question guide and how it addresses the qualitative questions.

·       Procedures and ethics: describe pilot testing where feasible, recruitment, consent, data collection dates and procedures. Explain voluntary participation, confidentiality or anonymity, secure storage and access, withdrawal arrangements and relevant institutional approval or permission before recruitment, where required. Do not include identifying participant details.

·       Quality and analysis plan: explain reliability and validity for quantitative measures, and credibility and trustworthiness for qualitative work where relevant. Identify the SPSS and AMOS analyses, qualitative technique, assumptions, decision criteria and integration procedures. Report meaningful changes from the plan and their reasons.

·       Project management: summarise the actual timetable, key milestones, access and resource constraints, and how challenges were managed.

4 Data analysis and findings

Present actual results in a logical order, preferably by research question or hypothesis. Explain the analysis alongside the findings, and use labelled tables and figures with clear titles, sample sizes and source notes. Avoid reproducing unedited software output in the main text.

Quantitative analysis using SPSS and AMOS

·       Describe screening and preparation: response counts, exclusions and reasons, missing data, coding, reverse scoring, outliers and relevant assumptions. Provide a participant profile and descriptive statistics appropriate to each variable.

·       Explain and report the reliability and validity evidence appropriate to the measures and sample. Report the tests selected in SPSS, why they were selected, and the results needed to interpret them, such as estimates, sample sizes, confidence intervals, effect sizes and p-values where relevant.

·       Use AMOS to assess the proposed measurement model and, where justified, the structural relationships. Describe model specification and identification, estimation, relevant assumptions and the rationale for assessing fit. Report appropriate fit indices, loadings, path estimates and uncertainty, as applicable; explain modifications and their theoretical justification. Do not present a well-fitting model as proof of causality.

·       State the outcome of each hypothesis or quantitative question and interpret the practical meaning as well as statistical evidence. A non-significant result is a finding; do not treat it as proof of no effect.

Additional qualitative analysis for mixed methods

·       Describe the qualitative dataset, transcription or preparation, and the stages used to move from familiarisation to coding, theme development, review and interpretation. Explain who coded, how decisions were documented and how credibility was supported.

·       Present clearly named themes with concise explanations and anonymised illustrative quotations or extracts. Identify the participant or source using non-identifying codes and show how themes answer the qualitative questions.

·       Integrate quantitative and qualitative findings in a joint display or structured narrative. Explain where results converge, complement or diverge, and answer the integration question. Distinguish interpretations from participant evidence and statistical results.

5 Discussion

Interpret the findings in relation to the objectives, hypotheses, conceptual model and literature. Explain agreement, disagreement or unexpected results and plausible reasons, including context and methodological limitations. Identify the contribution to knowledge and aviation practice without overstating generalisability or causality. For mixed methods, discuss what the integrated evidence adds beyond either strand alone.

6 Conclusions and recommendations

Answer the research questions directly and summarise the main evidence-based conclusions. Make specific, feasible recommendations for relevant aviation stakeholders and identify who could act on them. Explain limitations, including sampling, measurement, access and analytical constraints, and propose focused directions for future research. Do not introduce new findings here.

References

Provide a complete, accurate Harvard reference list. Every in-text citation must appear in the list and every listed source must be cited. Include the sources of adopted measures, analytical methods and relevant theory.

Appendices

Include material needed to assess the study without overloading the main report: the questionnaire and scale sources; qualitative guide for mixed methods; participant information and consent materials; relevant approval or permission evidence where required; sampling or power justification; a variable coding or analysis map; and selected supporting SPSS and AMOS output. For mixed methods, include an anonymised sample coding framework or theme-development example. Refer to each appendix in the text. Do not submit identifiable raw data or confidential records in the report.

Students must include evidence that they submitted the EAU research ethics declaration form, such as a submission confirmation or a copy of the completed form. Where ethical approval or organizational permission is required, include the relevant approval or permission evidence. Remove or obscure any sensitive personal information before including these documents.

5.    Analysis and reporting checklist

·       Trace every objective and question to a measure or qualitative prompt, analysis, finding and conclusion. Check that the final model, hypotheses and terminology agree throughout.

·       Use genuine primary data and report the achieved sample honestly. Explain missing data, exclusions, deviations and limitations; never invent responses, statistics, quotations, approval or sources.

·       Choose analyses appropriate to the research design, measurement and sample. Report assumptions and limitations, including whether the data support the complexity of the AMOS model.

·       Use tables and figures to communicate results, followed by interpretation in the text. State what each finding means for the research question.

·       For mixed methods, report both strands and an explicit integrated conclusion, including meaningful discrepancies.

·       Revise the introduction and literature review using Assignment 1 feedback; retain a brief record of changes for the instructor if requested.

6.    Assessment criteria

The following marking rubric totals 100 marks for Assignment 2. The assignment contributes 80% to the overall module grade; Assignment 1 contributes the remaining 20%.

For a quantitative report, the findings criterion assesses quantitative presentation and interpretation. For a mixed-methods report, it also assesses the qualitative analysis and integration. The same total marks apply to both pathways.

7.    Format and submission

·       Length: 4,000–6,000 words, excluding references and appendices. State the word count on the cover page. The abstract is part of the report; follow any further instructor guidance on counting it.

·       Use Times New Roman or Arial, 12-point font, 1.5 line spacing and 2.5 cm margins. Number pages, sections, tables and figures; use clear academic English and Harvard referencing.

·       Submit your report through the Moodle/Turnitin link. Submit the report in Word or PDF format. Any separate requirements for software files will be communicated by the instructor.

·       Late submissions: Assignments submitted up to one week after the deadline will incur a 10% penalty. Assignments submitted between one and two weeks after the deadline will incur a 20% penalty. The final late submission deadline is 3 January 2027. Submissions received more than two weeks after the original deadline will receive a mark of zero.

·       For submission after the original deadline, email your assignment from your EAU email account to PhD@eau.ac.ae. State the module name and explain the reason for the late submission. The email timestamp will serve as the official submission record.

·       Follow current university research ethics, academic integrity and responsible-use policies. Retain securely the data, consent records, analysis files, syntax and sources in accordance with approved procedures, and make permitted evidence available if requested. Complete and submit the ethics declaration before collecting primary data and obtain required clearance and permissions before the relevant activities begin.

Before submission, check that the report is complete, findings are traceable to the collected data, all feedback has been considered, and the reference list and appendices match the text.