This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

ESRC accredited research masters

just a quick question will these types of master invariably involve writing a long thesis or just provide courses on how you would conduct research?

I really hope the former.

Thanks

Reply 1

The Boosh

17

mine was research methodology training with a dissertation at the end about research methodology (10,000 words). i've seen mres courses which involve project work but as far as i know these are mainly in the natural sciences.

Reply 2

EierVonSatan

21

Depends on the program as to whether or not it will contain some taught courses, but for a research masters a thesis is almost always a significant component :smile:

Reply 3

The Boosh

17

i think the esrc research masters are design to teach the student about research methodology prior to the doctorate, so i would be surprised to find a course without any teaching.

Reply 4

Kitty Pimms

17

Mine's 15000 words plus 6 taught methodology modules (2/3rds of the mark) which is pretty commonplace.

Not that this matters much since the OP's already been perma banned.

Reply 5

XJR

5

I think all ESRC accredited masters need to have a dissertation. There are specific subject modules, taught research methods modules and then a dissertation of 10000 - 15000 words at the end.

Without the dissertation (i.e. just the taught modules) you only get a PGDip not the full MA or MSc.

Reply 6

EierVonSatan

21

IlexAquifolium

Not that this matters much since the OP's already been perma banned.

Damn, that was quick...

Reply 7

andrewp

Wot's an OP?

Does the dissertation always have to be about research methodology? I got the impression it was free reign. Maybe it varies from place to place?

Reply 8

EierVonSatan

21

andrewp

Wot's an OP?

The OP is the original poster :smile:

Reply 9

The Boosh

17

andrewp

Wot's an OP?

Does the dissertation always have to be about research methodology? I got the impression it was free reign. Maybe it varies from place to place?

mine esrc msc was sort of, but the dissertations that i know of were directly related to the phd and typically consisted of lit. reviews (resulting in positional pieces) or a critique of methodology.

as far as i'm aware, there is much more ambiguity with the ahrc masters because they are not so research-training intensive and actually involve (large) portions of taught subject knowledge in addition to methodology knowledge.

Reply 10

apotoftea

19

The Boosh

as far as i'm aware, there is much more ambiguity with the ahrc masters because they are not so research-training intensive and actually involve (large) portions of taught subject knowledge in addition to methodology knowledge.

That's the impression I've got from reading all the blurb on the AHRC website about MAs, research training and PhD funding.

Reply 11

The Boosh

17

i guess a lot of ahrc work isn't empirical but conceptual, which entails a different skill and knowledge emphasis. imo, it's also the reason why scientists go straight to phd - they don't have to mess about with paradigm wars because scientists do scientific research and scientific research can be learned from undergrad onwards, whereas the social sciences are still in a murky area when it comes to "the" methodology to adopt (partly because of the critical nature of half the field). psychology is brilliant because it's so contested - psychologists say it's a natural science, the natural sciences say it isn't, and the social sciences/arts and humanities poke fun at it for being "naive". sociology when through the same thing in the 70s.+

Reply 12

Kitty Pimms

17

The Boosh

i guess a lot of ahrc work isn't empirical but conceptual, which entails a different skill and knowledge emphasis. imo, it's also the reason why scientists go straight to phd - they don't have to mess about with paradigm wars because scientists do scientific research and scientific research can be learned from undergrad onwards, whereas the social sciences are still in a murky area when it comes to "the" methodology to adopt (partly because of the critical nature of half the field). psychology is brilliant because it's so contested - psychologists say it's a natural science, the natural sciences say it isn't, and the social sciences/arts and humanities poke fun at it for being "naive". sociology when through the same thing in the 70s.+

<OT debate>

I think that's an oversimplification with regards psychology, Boosh. You seem to be arguing that it is a single (externally contested) field, which I don't think it is. I would suggest that the internal divisions create those categories - neuropsych is most definitely a natural science, behavioural and cognitive psych is mid-way between natural/social sciences, and social psych is - as the name suggests - a social science (although I agree that certain practitioners seem to like to pretend it isn't, and therefore sideline the post-positivist debates going on elsewhere in the field). I don't think the kind of debates that I engage in though are especially relevant to someone who spends their days staring at brain scanners. I'm probably being naive in excusing them, though :p:

</OT debate>

Reply 13

The Boosh

17

see gogsoc :smile:

ESRC accredited research masters

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you