# Academic Supervisor — Section briefs in force

What each section of each document type is judged against, in the Board's five-part shape: its purpose; what a competent version accomplishes (functions, judged as achieved in whatever legitimate form — not words that must appear); the tests that decide whether they were; what is expected only where the research type, discipline, genre or method makes it applicable; and what is not judged there. Every brief below is the version approved by the Academic Supervisor Board; an approved version is never edited, so a change is a new version and the one it replaced stays on record.

The false-fault test applies to every section and is the evaluator's standing rule: before reporting any omission or weakness: ask whether the element is genuinely necessary for this research and genre. If the section can legitimately fulfil the function in another form, treat the difference as an alternative rather than a defect. Apply additional requirements only where the research profile, discipline, genre, method or design, or the institution's or journal's rules make them relevant. Reason in this order — research profile → section function → applicable criteria → quality of performance → local alignment → false-fault test → substantive defect, tied to the brief item it concerns → proportionate priority → verdict bound to the priorities → smallest change, named — and never in reverse: do not see a missing item in a generic brief and infer a defect before deciding whether that item applies.

Generated from the live record on 2026-10-19. Console: Platform → Governance → Section briefs.

## Full Thesis / Dissertation / Project Work

### Preliminaries

#### 1. Title `title` · v5

**Purpose:** Identify the study clearly enough for a scholarly reader to understand its subject, central research focus and necessary scope.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the actual subject, phenomenon, problem or object of enquiry rather than merely a broad topic
- communicates the central research focus at an appropriate level of specificity
- includes scope-defining information where its absence would materially obscure the study
- uses meaningful and searchable scholarly terminology
- is concise and readable
- avoids ambiguity or undefined terminology that materially obscures what is being studied

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clarity — can a scholarly reader identify what the thesis investigates?
- Specificity — is it sufficiently focused without unnecessary restriction?
- Accuracy — does it represent the actual study?
- Distinctiveness — does it distinguish the study where needed?
- Searchability — does it use meaningful scholarly terminology?
- Disciplinary/genre appropriateness — does the wording fit the field and thesis genre without importing requirements from another field?
- Economy — is it concise without losing information necessary for identification?

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Population, corpus, location, period, tradition, denomination, specific case/object, relationship or other scope-defining information may be included when its absence would materially obscure the identity, scope or focus of the study. Method or theoretical lens may be included only where it itself materially distinguishes the study

**Not judged here:**
- research mode, methodology, discipline, tradition, epistemology, design and institutional requirements may be used to judge the title's appropriateness, but they must not be treated as title components merely because the evaluator knows them
- a particular title structure, noun phrase, colon, question format, methodology, research type, population, relationship, theoretical framework, or fixed length

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 2. Abstract `abstract` · v5

**Purpose:** Provide a self-contained account of the completed study so a reader can understand its purpose, approach, principal outcome and significance without reading the whole work.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- the research problem, question, purpose or central issue
- the approach/design or mode of enquiry, where relevant
- principal findings, argument, interpretation or outcome
- conclusion or principal contribution
- enough context to understand the work
- the required word limit and format

**Evaluator tests:**
- Coverage — does it represent the central purpose/issue, approach where relevant, principal outcome and conclusion/contribution?
- Fidelity — does it accurately represent the work rather than promise or invent results?
- Self-containment and economy
- Compliance with applicable genre/word-limit requirements

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Methods, numerical results, hypotheses, participants, theoretical framework or practical implications depend on the research type

**Not judged here:**
- citations, tables, findings in a particular order, or a promise of future work unless the relevant genre requires them

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 3. Introduction `introduction` · v4

**Purpose:** Orient the reader to the study and establish its overall direction.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the study and its central concern
- provides necessary orientation
- establishes the rationale or intellectual context
- gives a clear roadmap where useful

**Evaluator tests:**
- Orientation to the subject and central task
- Clear purpose/question/thesis/organising idea where appropriate
- Proportionate context and scholarly positioning
- A coherent transition into the main work

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Aim, objectives, questions, theory, method and gap may be integrated into the introduction or placed in separate sections

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

### Introduction

#### 4. Background to the Study `background` · v5

**Purpose:** Provide the context necessary for the reader to understand why the study's subject, question, problem or argument has arisen.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- establishes the relevant context
- gives necessary historical, social, institutional, intellectual, disciplinary or situational background where relevant
- moves appropriately from broader context towards the study's specific concern
- provides credible grounds for understanding the importance or emergence of the issue
- avoids becoming an unrelated literature review

**Evaluator tests:**
- Relevance — does the context help the reader understand the study?
- Progression — does it move towards the study’s specific concern appropriately?
- Sufficiency — is enough context supplied without unnecessary history or literature catalogue?
- Grounding — are factual/contextual claims appropriately supported?

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Historical development, statistics, institutional context, social context or current events should appear only where they help establish the study's context

**Not judged here:**
- historical background for every topic

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 5. Statement of the Problem `problem_statement` · v5

**Purpose:** Define the central problem, unresolved question, tension, deficiency, puzzle or challenge that warrants the study.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies a sufficiently specific research problem
- distinguishes the problem from the broad topic
- explains why the problem is unresolved or worth investigating
- establishes the relevant context and consequences where appropriate
- is grounded in credible evidence or scholarship where the claim requires it
- connects coherently to the study's purpose and questions/argument

**Evaluator tests:**
- Specificity — is the problem/puzzle/tension sufficiently defined?
- Researchability — does it create a legitimate reason for enquiry?
- Grounding — is the problem supported where evidence or scholarship is needed?
- Alignment with the study purpose/questions/argument

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A "current versus desired state" formulation is appropriate for some applied/problem-solving research but not universal

**Not judged here:**
- a social problem, normative deficiency, affected population, or practical solution when the research is theoretical, conceptual, historical, textual or otherwise non-applied

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 6. Research Gap `research_gap` · v5

**Purpose:** Identify the unresolved scholarly space that the study addresses.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- accurately represents what relevant scholarship has established
- identifies what remains unresolved, under-examined, contested or insufficiently explained
- specifies the nature of the gap where useful
- explains why the gap matters to the study
- connects the gap to the research purpose/questions or central argument

**Evaluator tests:**
- Demonstration — is the gap established from relevant scholarship rather than merely asserted?
- Precision — is it clear what remains unresolved or under-examined?
- Legitimacy — is the claimed gap appropriate to the discipline and research type?
- Connection to the proposed scholarly contribution

**Not judged here:**
- any one particular form — possible forms include empirical, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, contextual, geographical, population-related, historiographical, interpretive, textual, normative, practical, or another discipline-recognised form
- a gap labelled with one of these categories if the study clearly identifies its scholarly opening in another legitimate form

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 7. Aim of the Study `aim` · v5

**Purpose:** State the overarching purpose or intended scholarly task of the study.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- expresses one coherent overarching purpose
- is appropriately broad relative to the objectives/questions or argument
- uses a suitable action or purpose formulation
- directly addresses the identified problem, gap or intellectual task
- is achievable within the study's scope

**Evaluator tests:**
- Coherence — is there a clear overarching purpose?
- Alignment with the problem/gap/intellectual task
- Appropriate breadth for the study
- Feasibility within the stated scope

**Not judged here:**
- a particular verb such as "examine", "determine" or "evaluate"

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 8. Research Objectives `objectives` · v5

**Purpose:** Translate the overall aim into manageable scholarly tasks where objectives are used by the research design or institution.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- are clear and distinct
- collectively serve the aim
- are appropriate to the research type
- are sufficiently specific to guide the work
- use assessable or otherwise meaningful action language
- do not duplicate one another

**Evaluator tests:**
- Distinctness — do the objectives represent genuinely different tasks where objectives are used?
- Collective alignment with the aim
- Appropriate specificity and assessability for the research type
- Coverage — together do they address the study’s intended work without unnecessary duplication?

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Objectives may be unnecessary where a discipline or research genre is organised around a central question, proposition, argument or research aim

**Not judged here:**
- exactly 3--5 objectives or the word "measurable"

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 9. Literature Review `literature_review` · v4

**Purpose:** Establish and critically synthesise relevant scholarship.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies relevant scholarship
- organises sources around themes, debates, concepts, problems or another meaningful structure
- compares and evaluates rather than merely summarises
- identifies unresolved issues relevant to the study
- positions the study within the scholarly conversation

**Evaluator tests:**
- Relevant scholarship is identified and used analytically
- Synthesis and critical comparison
- Clear positioning of the study/paper in the scholarly conversation
- No unnecessary catalogue of sources

**Not judged here:**
- a separate "gap" subsection if the review demonstrates the gap effectively

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

### Introduction

#### 10. Research Questions `research_questions` · v5

**Purpose:** State the questions that guide the enquiry where the study is question-driven.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- arise logically from the problem, gap and purpose
- are answerable through the proposed or completed work
- are appropriately focused
- align with objectives where objectives exist
- reflect the research type and mode of enquiry

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clarity and focus
- Answerability or examinability through the chosen mode of enquiry
- Alignment with the problem, aim and design/argument
- Appropriate number and structure for the research — not an arbitrary count

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A study may legitimately use one central question, multiple questions, subquestions, propositions, hypotheses, or a governing argument instead

**Not judged here:**
- exactly 2--5 questions

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 11. Theoretical / Conceptual Framework `framework` · v4

**Purpose:** Establish the theory, concepts, model, interpretive lens or organising framework used by the study.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the framework
- explains why it is relevant
- shows how it informs analysis or interpretation
- connects it to the research task

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clear theoretical/conceptual/analytical basis where applicable
- Justification and fit with the research task
- Actual use of the framework in analysis or interpretation

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A study may use a theoretical, conceptual, analytical, interpretive, doctrinal or other framework

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

### Introduction

#### 12. Significance of the Study `significance` · v5

**Purpose:** Explain the scholarly or other legitimate importance of undertaking the study.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the kind of contribution or value the study can reasonably offer
- distinguishes scholarly, theoretical, methodological, practical, policy, professional, cultural or other relevant significance
- identifies relevant users or communities where appropriate
- keeps claims proportionate to the study's scope and evidence

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clear account of why the work matters
- Appropriate type of significance for the research
- Specificity and plausibility of claimed value
- Proportionality — no inflated benefits beyond what the study can support

**Not judged here:**
- identifiable beneficiaries or practical change for basic, theoretical, historical, conceptual or interpretive research

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 13. Disciplinary Framework `disciplinary_framework` · v1

**Purpose:** Set out the discipline-specific framework the study reasons from — theological, legal, philosophical or another — and show how it governs the analysis. Judge only whether it is clearly stated, justified and applied consistently; never whether its doctrinal, confessional or philosophical claims are true, which is not yours to adjudicate.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- names the framework precisely: the tradition, confession, doctrine, jurisprudence, school or position the study reasons from
- identifies the sources it treats as authoritative, and where they stand in relation to each other
- states the interpretive method applied to those sources, and why it suits this question
- says what work the framework does in the analysis — evidence, norm, interpretive lens, or the object of inquiry itself
- shows how it bears on the research questions, not merely that it is held
- where two or more frameworks are combined, states which governs which part of the analysis
- where two or more frameworks are combined, shows their underlying assumptions can hold together, or explains how the tension is handled rather than leaving it unremarked
- distinguishes itself from the theoretical and conceptual frameworks instead of repeating them

**Not judged here:**
- a defence of whether the tradition, doctrine or position is true — this section states what the study reasons from, not an apologetic for it
- a general literature review
- the research method or procedure, which belongs in Methodology
- findings or interpretation of data
- a second framework, where one is sufficient — combining frameworks is a choice, not a requirement

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-03.*

### Introduction

#### 14. Scope and Delimitation `scope` · v5

**Purpose:** Establish what the study deliberately covers and does not cover.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- defines relevant boundaries of subject, evidence, population/corpus, place, period, concepts or comparison
- makes the study's intended limits clear
- distinguishes deliberate delimitations from limitations imposed by circumstances
- keeps the scope coherent with the research questions, purpose and design

**Evaluator tests:**
- Boundary clarity
- Coherence between boundaries and research purpose/questions/design
- Distinction between deliberate delimitations and externally imposed limitations
- No unnecessary exclusions or unexplained expansion of scope

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Each boundary may be explained where its rationale is not self-evident

**Not judged here:**
- every possible boundary category

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 15. Definition of Key Terms `definitions` · v5

**Purpose:** Establish how terms whose meanings could materially affect interpretation are understood in the study.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies genuinely important terms
- distinguishes contested or potentially ambiguous meanings
- uses definitions appropriate to the discipline
- states the study's adopted meaning where multiple meanings exist
- remains proportionate

**Evaluator tests:**
- Relevance — are only materially important terms clarified?
- Conceptual accuracy and disciplinary fit
- Resolution of ambiguity or contested meaning where needed
- Consistency between stated meanings and later use

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Operational definitions are appropriate for many empirical studies; conceptual, working, nominal, textual or discipline-specific definitions may be more appropriate elsewhere

**Not judged here:**
- 5--10 terms or a glossary

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 16. Methodology `methodology` · v4

**Purpose:** Explain how the research was conducted or how the enquiry was carried out.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- makes the research approach/design clear where applicable
- identifies relevant sources, participants, cases, corpus or material
- explains selection and collection procedures where relevant
- explains analysis or interpretive procedure
- demonstrates appropriate rigour and ethical responsibility

**Evaluator tests:**
- Coherent account of the mode/design/procedures appropriate to the research
- Fit with the research questions/purpose
- Sufficient transparency about evidence/material, analysis and rigour
- Ethical issues addressed where relevant

**Not judged here:**
- population, sample, instruments or statistical procedures unless applicable

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

### Introduction

#### 17. Organisation of the Study `organisation` · v5

**Purpose:** Give the reader a usable map of how the work is organised.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- accurately describes the function of major sections/chapters
- shows the logical progression of the work
- helps the reader understand how the parts contribute to the whole

**Evaluator tests:**
- Accuracy of the roadmap
- Logical progression between parts
- Usefulness to the reader
- Consistency with the actual structure of the work

**Not judged here:**
- approximate chapter lengths or a particular roadmap format

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

### Literature Review

#### 18. Conceptual Review `conceptual_review` · v5

**Purpose:** Clarify how central concepts have been understood in relevant scholarship and establish the conceptual position of the study.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies concepts that genuinely require clarification
- engages relevant scholarly definitions and interpretations
- distinguishes competing or overlapping meanings
- identifies important dimensions or components where relevant
- explains the conceptual understanding adopted by the study

**Evaluator tests:**
- Conceptual relevance
- Critical engagement with meanings rather than dictionary-style listing
- Recognition of significant competing or overlapping understandings where relevant
- Clear connection between the conceptual position and the study

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A separate conceptual review may be unnecessary if concepts are adequately developed within the literature review, theoretical discussion or framework

**Not judged here:**
- variable dimensions or operational definitions in conceptual/theoretical work unless appropriate

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 19. Theoretical Review `theoretical_review` · v5

**Purpose:** Examine theories relevant to the study and assess their usefulness for the research problem.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies genuinely relevant theories or theoretical traditions
- explains their central propositions sufficiently for the study
- critically compares relevant alternatives where necessary
- addresses strengths, limitations, assumptions or debates where relevant
- establishes why particular theory/theories matter to the study

**Evaluator tests:**
- Relevance of theories selected for review
- Critical comparison rather than textbook description
- Adequate treatment of propositions, assumptions and limitations where relevant
- Clear reason the reviewed theories matter to the study

**Not judged here:**
- a historical biography of every theorist or exhaustive coverage of theories unrelated to the study

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 20. Conclusion `conclusion` · v4

**Purpose:** Bring the study to a justified final position.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- answers the research purpose/questions or central argument
- states the principal contribution
- identifies warranted implications or recommendations where relevant
- indicates appropriate further research where useful
- avoids introducing unsupported new evidence or arguments

**Evaluator tests:**
- The central task is brought to a justified close
- Conclusions follow from the preceding analysis/argument
- Importance is stated proportionately
- No unsupported new evidence or argument

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

### Literature Review

#### 21. Theoretical Framework `theoretical_framework` · v5

**Purpose:** Show the theory or theoretical perspective through which the study understands, analyses or interprets its subject.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- clearly identifies the adopted theoretical lens
- justifies its relevance
- explains how it will perform analytical or interpretive work
- connects it to the study's questions, propositions, concepts, evidence or argument where applicable
- makes important assumptions visible

**Evaluator tests:**
- Explicit adoption or use of the theoretical perspective
- Fit between theory and research problem/questions/argument
- Demonstrable analytical or interpretive work performed by the theory
- Consistency between framework and later analysis

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Not every study requires a formal theoretical framework

**Not judged here:**
- constructs, variables, diagrams or hypothesis mapping where the theory does not operate in that way

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 22. Conceptual Framework `conceptual_framework` · v5

**Purpose:** Establish the study's organising conceptual structure and, where relevant, relationships among its central concepts or variables.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the concepts/constructs central to the study
- explains their relevant relationships or logical connections
- distinguishes the framework from a mere list of concepts
- makes the framework useful for guiding enquiry or interpretation

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clarity of the study’s organising concepts
- Relationships or structure are intelligible in the form appropriate to the research
- Fit with the research questions/argument
- No forced variable/causal model where the research does not use one

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Directional relationships, mediators, moderators and diagrams apply mainly where the research model calls for them

**Not judged here:**
- variables or causal arrows in conceptual, historical, philosophical, textual or interpretive research where those categories are inappropriate

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 23. Empirical Review `empirical_review` · v5

**Purpose:** Examine relevant previous studies and what their evidence establishes, suggests or leaves unresolved.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies relevant empirical research where empirical literature is pertinent
- synthesises findings rather than merely cataloguing studies
- compares contexts, methods, populations, evidence and conclusions where these differences matter
- recognises agreement, disagreement and uncertainty
- identifies implications for the present study

**Evaluator tests:**
- Relevance and coverage of pertinent empirical evidence
- Synthesis and comparison rather than source-by-source inventory
- Critical attention to evidence quality and limitations where appropriate
- Clear identification of what the evidence does and does not establish

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- An empirical review is unnecessary where the study is not materially engaging empirical scholarship

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 24. Critical Synthesis of the Literature `critical_synthesis` · v5

**Purpose:** Move from individual sources to a reasoned account of what the body of scholarship collectively establishes and where uncertainty remains.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- makes claims about patterns, debates, tensions or evidence across sources
- weighs competing explanations or interpretations
- explains significant disagreement rather than simply listing it
- identifies what remains unresolved
- makes the researcher's scholarly judgement visible and defensible

**Evaluator tests:**
- Movement from individual sources to defensible field-level claims
- Explanation of patterns, disagreement or conditions where relevant
- Visible and reasoned scholarly judgement
- Clear movement towards the unresolved issue or contribution

**Not judged here:**
- a separately labelled synthesis if the literature review itself performs this function effectively

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 25. Identified Research Gap `identified_gap` · v5

**Purpose:** Demonstrate, from the reviewed scholarship, the precise unresolved space that the study addresses.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- is supported by the literature actually reviewed
- distinguishes an evidenced gap from an unsupported assertion
- identifies the relevant type of unresolved issue
- explains why existing scholarship does not adequately settle it
- connects directly to the study's questions, objectives, argument or purpose

**Evaluator tests:**
- The gap is demonstrated, not simply repeated
- Sources actually support the claimed unresolved issue
- The gap is precise and appropriate to the research tradition
- The study’s questions/aim/argument plausibly address it

**Not judged here:**
- a separate section when the gap is already convincingly demonstrated within an integrated literature review

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

### Methodology

#### 26. Research Approach `research_approach` · v5

**Purpose:** Explain the broad methodological or mode-of-enquiry orientation through which the study addresses its research task, including relevant epistemological assumptions where they materially shape the enquiry.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- accurately identifies the approach used
- explains why the approach fits the research purpose/questions
- makes relevant assumptions or reasoning strategies clear
- identifies important strengths and boundaries of the approach
- explains relationships among strands where a mixed or multi-method approach is used

**Evaluator tests:**
- Fit between broad mode of enquiry and research purpose/questions
- Appropriate explanation of the reasoning orientation where relevant
- Recognition of what the approach enables and what it may not address
- Coherence between approach and subsequent design/methods

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Qualitative/quantitative labels and deductive/inductive/abductive reasoning apply where meaningful

**Not judged here:**
- one of these labels when the discipline uses another legitimate methodological vocabulary

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 27. Research Design `research_design` · v5

**Purpose:** Explain the specific structure through which the research task is carried out.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the design or mode of enquiry accurately where a named design is appropriate
- explains its fit with the research purpose/questions
- makes the unit or object of analysis clear where relevant
- explains important temporal or comparative dimensions where relevant
- provides sufficient rationale for the design

**Evaluator tests:**
- Design fit with the research purpose/questions
- Sufficient explanation of how the design permits the enquiry
- Appropriate treatment of unit/case/corpus/time structure where relevant
- Any comparison with alternatives is useful rather than formulaic

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A named design, unit of analysis, cross-sectional/longitudinal distinction or comparison with alternatives is required only where relevant

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 28. Research Setting and Context `research_setting` · v5

**Purpose:** Establish the setting and contextual conditions necessary for understanding the research.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- describes the relevant place, institution, community, environment, archive, textual world or intellectual context
- identifies distinctive characteristics that matter to the study
- explains why the context is appropriate where that needs justification
- makes contextual conditions that could affect interpretation visible

**Evaluator tests:**
- Sufficiency of context for understanding the enquiry
- Relevance of distinctive social, institutional, cultural, historical or geographical features
- Clear relationship between setting and the study’s scope/interpretation

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Physical location, institutional setting, cultural context or temporal setting depend on the research

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 29. Population `population` · v5

**Purpose:** Define the wider body of people, cases, texts, artefacts, documents, events, materials or phenomena to which the study's claims are directed, where such a boundary exists.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- clearly identifies what the study is about or draws from
- establishes relevant boundaries
- distinguishes the wider field from the material actually examined where necessary
- provides size or extent information where meaningful

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clear identification of the population, corpus, cases or object of study where such a concept applies
- Coherence between the defined universe and the study’s claims
- Relevant boundaries or characteristics are sufficiently specified

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- The concept of population may be replaced by corpus, archive, cases, texts, documents, artefacts, events, or another discipline-specific object of study

**Not judged here:**
- a population in research that has no population concept

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 30. Sample and Sampling Technique `sampling` · v5

**Purpose:** Explain how the material actually examined was selected from the wider possible field, where selection occurs.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies what was included in the study
- explains how selection was made
- provides an appropriate rationale
- identifies inclusion/exclusion criteria where relevant
- explains implications for the scope of claims

**Evaluator tests:**
- Appropriateness of selection/strategy where selection is required
- Transparency about how the selected material, cases or participants were chosen
- Justification appropriate to the research type
- Honest treatment of the implications for transfer, generalisation or representativeness where relevant

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Sampling may be random, purposive, theoretical, convenience-based, criterion-based, archival, textual, case selection, theoretical selection, or another appropriate procedure

**Not judged here:**
- sample-size power calculations, saturation, generalisability analysis or a named sampling technique unless relevant

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 31. Data Collection Methods `data_collection` · v5

**Purpose:** Explain how the evidence, data, texts, observations, artefacts or other research material was obtained or assembled.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the sources or collection methods
- explains the procedure sufficiently for transparency
- establishes relevant dates, locations, stages or conditions
- explains access, permissions or consent where relevant
- identifies material collection problems that materially affect the study

**Evaluator tests:**
- Transparency about how evidence/material was obtained
- Fit between collection strategy and research questions/design
- Sufficient procedural detail for the relevant research tradition
- Appropriate handling of access, recording and deviations where relevant

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Repeatability is appropriate for some empirical designs; transparency and traceability may be the more relevant standard in historical, textual, ethnographic or creative research

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 32. Research Instruments `instruments` · v5

**Purpose:** Explain the tools or structured materials used to generate, record, measure, code or organise research evidence where such tools are part of the design.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the relevant instrument/tool/material
- explains whether it was adopted, adapted or developed
- establishes its connection to the research purpose/questions
- provides relevant information about structure, administration or scoring
- addresses piloting, validation or refinement where applicable

**Evaluator tests:**
- Suitability of the tools/materials for the task where instruments are used
- Adequate description or source of the instrument/tool
- Alignment with questions/constructs/tasks
- Appropriate evidence of piloting, reliability or validity only where relevant

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Interviews, questionnaires, tests, scales, observation schedules, software tools, coding schemes or laboratory instruments may require different forms of evaluation

**Not judged here:**
- an "instrument" where the research relies primarily on texts, archives, philosophical argument, doctrinal sources or other non-instrumental modes of enquiry

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 33. Data Analysis `data_analysis` · v5

**Purpose:** Explain how collected or selected material was transformed into findings, interpretations, arguments, classifications or conclusions.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the actual analytical procedure
- explains why it fits the research purpose and material
- describes sufficiently how analysis was conducted
- makes relevant coding, comparison, interpretation, calculation or reasoning processes transparent
- identifies software, statistical procedures or other tools where materially relevant

**Evaluator tests:**
- Fit between analytical procedure and research questions/material
- Transparency of the actual analytical process
- Appropriate handling of coding, comparison, interpretation, calculation or reasoning
- Clear connection between analysis and reported outcomes

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Statistical analysis, thematic coding, content analysis, discourse analysis, textual criticism, exegesis, historical criticism, comparative analysis, philosophical analysis and other methods should be judged according to their own legitimate standards

**Not judged here:**
- "data-to-findings" language where the research is primarily conceptual or argumentative

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 34. Validity, Reliability and Trustworthiness `trustworthiness` · v5

**Purpose:** Explain why the study's evidence, reasoning, interpretation or conclusions are sufficiently credible for the claims being made.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies and applies the quality criteria appropriate to the study's research tradition and claims
- provides concrete safeguards or grounds for credibility rather than labels alone
- makes important evidential, interpretive or inferential limits visible
- demonstrates the form of rigour appropriate to the study
- Possible quality traditions include validity/reliability, credibility/dependability/confirmability/transferability, triangulation, auditability, source criticism, textual reliability, interpretive adequacy, argument validity, conceptual coherence, theoretical consistency, reflexivity, transparency, reproducibility or other discipline-recognised standards. These are alternatives, not a checklist

**Evaluator tests:**
- Use of the quality criteria appropriate to the research tradition
- Concrete safeguards rather than labels alone
- Transparency about evidential or interpretive limits
- Fit between quality claims and the kinds of claims the study makes

**Not judged here:**
- the quantitative/qualitative terminology in research governed by another quality tradition

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 35. Ethical Considerations `ethics` · v5

**Purpose:** Demonstrate that the research has addressed relevant ethical responsibilities.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- ethical approval or exemption; informed consent; confidentiality/anonymity; data protection and storage; risks and mitigation; vulnerable participants; conflicts of interest; cultural, community or religious sensitivities; intellectual property, permissions or ownership; responsible use of archives, texts, images or data; researcher positionality or reflexivity where ethically relevant; research integrity (where applicable)

**Evaluator tests:**
- Coverage of ethical issues actually raised by the research
- Appropriate approvals, permissions, consent, protection or integrity measures where relevant
- Attention to contextual, cultural, intellectual-property and positionality issues where applicable
- No invented participant requirements when no human-participant issue exists

**Not judged here:**
- participant consent procedures where there are no human participants and no equivalent ethical issue

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

### Results and Findings

#### 36. Presentation of Findings `findings` · v5

**Purpose:** Present what the research established from its evidence, analysis or enquiry in a form that allows the reader to see the basis of the later conclusions.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- is organised coherently around the research questions, objectives, themes, cases, propositions or analytical structure
- provides sufficient evidence for the claims
- distinguishes evidence from unsupported assertion
- reports important contrary, negative or unexpected material where relevant
- uses tables, figures, quotations, extracts or artefacts where they genuinely improve communication
- makes the principal findings or analytical outcomes clear

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clarity of the outcomes established by the research
- Sufficient evidential basis for the reported claims
- Coherent organisation around the research questions, themes, cases, propositions or analytical structure
- Appropriate distinction or integration of interpretation according to genre
- Important contrary or unexpected material is not concealed where relevant

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A strict separation of results from interpretation is appropriate in some empirical genres but not universal

**Not judged here:**
- a separate findings chapter, tables, numerical results, quotations or complete separation from interpretation

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

### Discussion

#### 37. Discussion of Findings `discussion` · v5

**Purpose:** Explain what the research outcomes mean in relation to the research purpose, questions, scholarship, theory, concepts or wider intellectual context.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- interprets rather than merely repeats results
- answers or resolves the research questions/central problem
- relates the outcomes to relevant scholarship
- explains agreement, disagreement, surprise or tension
- uses the theoretical/conceptual framework where one is part of the study
- distinguishes what the evidence supports from what remains uncertain

**Evaluator tests:**
- Interpretive depth rather than mere repetition
- Direct engagement with the research purpose/questions/central argument
- Connection with relevant scholarship, concepts or theory where applicable
- Appropriate treatment of agreement, disagreement, surprise and uncertainty
- Claims remain within the warrant of the evidence/reasoning

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Comparison with prior empirical studies, theory testing, causal explanation or formal interpretation depends on research type

**Not judged here:**
- a separate discussion section where interpretation is legitimately integrated into findings or analysis

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 38. Implications of the Findings `implications` · v5

**Purpose:** Explain what follows from the study's results, argument or conclusions beyond the immediate presentation of evidence.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- theoretical, conceptual, methodological, scholarly, practical, professional, policy, cultural, contextual, ethical (where relevant)
- Each implication should be proportionate to what the study actually establishes

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clear explanation of what follows from the study
- Traceability to the study’s findings, argument or conclusions
- Appropriate type of implication for the research
- Proportionality and avoidance of unsupported extrapolation

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Practical or policy implications are not required for purely theoretical, conceptual, historical or interpretive studies unless relevant

**Not judged here:**
- every possible type of implication or one-to-one tracing to a single "finding" where the research produces integrated arguments

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

### Conclusion and Recommendations

#### 39. Summary of the Study `summary_of_study` · v5

**Purpose:** Briefly remind the reader of the research task, approach and principal outcome before the final conclusions.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the problem/question/purpose
- briefly represents the approach or mode of enquiry
- summarises the principal outcomes
- is proportionate

**Evaluator tests:**
- Faithful compression of the study
- Proportionate representation of problem/purpose, approach and principal outcomes
- No new argument or evidence

**Not judged here:**
- a chapter-by-chapter recap

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 40. Conclusions `conclusions` · v5

**Purpose:** State what the study can legitimately conclude from the work undertaken.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- directly addresses the research purpose/questions or central argument
- distinguishes established conclusions from tentative implications
- follows from the evidence, analysis or reasoning
- addresses the original problem or intellectual question
- avoids claims beyond the study's warrant

**Evaluator tests:**
- Direct response to the research purpose/questions/central argument
- Claims follow from the evidence, analysis or reasoning
- Appropriate distinction between established and tentative conclusions
- No material overclaiming

**Not judged here:**
- a numerical finding, causal conclusion, or empirical formulation in research where those do not apply

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 41. Contribution to Knowledge `contribution` · v5

**Purpose:** State precisely what the study adds to existing knowledge or understanding.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- states specifically what the study adds to knowledge, understanding, practice or another legitimate scholarly domain
- identifies the form of contribution that actually applies to the study
- grounds the contribution in the study's results, argument, analysis or artefact
- keeps the claim proportionate to what the study establishes
- Possible forms include empirical, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, interpretive, historical/historiographical, contextual, practical/professional, creative/practice-based, synthetic or interdisciplinary contribution. These are alternatives, not a checklist

**Evaluator tests:**
- Specificity — what is actually added?
- Grounding in the study’s results, argument or analysis
- Appropriate contribution type for the discipline/research mode
- Proportionality — neither trivial nor inflated

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 42. Recommendations `recommendations` · v5

**Purpose:** State justified actions or changes that follow from the research where recommendations are appropriate.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- follow from the study's evidence or conclusions
- identify the relevant actor where useful
- are feasible and proportionate
- distinguish evidence-based recommendations from suggestions

**Evaluator tests:**
- Traceability to the study’s conclusions/evidence
- Appropriate audience or actor where action is proposed
- Feasibility and proportionality
- Relevance — recommendations are present only where the study warrants them

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Recommendations may be unnecessary in theoretical, conceptual, historical or interpretive work

**Not judged here:**
- practical or policy recommendations merely because the section heading exists

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 43. Limitations of the Study `limitations` · v5

**Purpose:** State factors that constrain the interpretation, transfer, scope or confidence of the study's claims.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies substantive limitations rather than trivial inconveniences
- explains their effect on claims or interpretation
- distinguishes researcher-imposed delimitations from constraints
- identifies mitigation where relevant
- is candid without undermining the study unnecessarily

**Evaluator tests:**
- Materiality — does the limitation actually affect interpretation or claims?
- Clear distinction from delimitations
- Explanation of consequences for the study’s warrant
- Mitigation or qualification where relevant

**Not judged here:**
- any one particular limitation — possible limitations include design, evidence, sources, access, time, sample, measurement, interpretation, archival gaps, theoretical boundaries, researcher position or contextual transferability

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 44. Areas for Further Research `further_research` · v5

**Purpose:** Identify worthwhile questions or directions that emerge from the completed study.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- connected to the study's conclusions, unresolved issues or limitations
- sufficiently specific to be meaningful
- genuinely extensions, alternatives or new questions rather than vague calls for "more research"
- proportionate to what the study has established

**Evaluator tests:**
- Meaningful connection to conclusions, unresolved questions or limitations
- Specificity of proposed next work
- Genuine extension or new enquiry rather than a generic call for more research
- Fit with the research tradition

**Not judged here:**
- a future empirical study or a new population where those concepts do not apply

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

### End Matter

#### 45. References `references` · v5

**Purpose:** Enable readers to identify and retrieve the sources used.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- the required referencing system is applied consistently
- bibliographic information is sufficiently complete and accurate
- sources are retrievable
- in-text citations and reference entries correspond where the chosen style requires this
- primary/secondary distinctions are made where relevant

**Evaluator tests:**
- Accuracy and completeness appropriate to the required style
- Consistency of citation/reference correspondence where required
- Retrievability and sufficient bibliographic detail
- Discipline, institution or publisher requirements are followed

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Exact reference-list conventions depend on discipline, institution, publisher and style guide

**Not judged here:**
- one universal rule that every source consulted must or must not appear unless the applicable style specifies it

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 46. Legal Framework `legal_framework` · v1

**Purpose:** Set out the discipline-specific framework the study reasons from — theological, legal, philosophical or another — and show how it governs the analysis. Judge only whether it is clearly stated, justified and applied consistently; never whether its doctrinal, confessional or philosophical claims are true, which is not yours to adjudicate.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- names the framework precisely: the tradition, confession, doctrine, jurisprudence, school or position the study reasons from
- identifies the sources it treats as authoritative, and where they stand in relation to each other
- states the interpretive method applied to those sources, and why it suits this question
- says what work the framework does in the analysis — evidence, norm, interpretive lens, or the object of inquiry itself
- shows how it bears on the research questions, not merely that it is held
- where two or more frameworks are combined, states which governs which part of the analysis
- where two or more frameworks are combined, shows their underlying assumptions can hold together, or explains how the tension is handled rather than leaving it unremarked
- distinguishes itself from the theoretical and conceptual frameworks instead of repeating them

**Not judged here:**
- a defence of whether the tradition, doctrine or position is true — this section states what the study reasons from, not an apologetic for it
- a general literature review
- the research method or procedure, which belongs in Methodology
- findings or interpretation of data
- a second framework, where one is sufficient — combining frameworks is a choice, not a requirement

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-03.*

#### 47. Philosophical Framework `philosophical_framework` · v1

**Purpose:** Set out the discipline-specific framework the study reasons from — theological, legal, philosophical or another — and show how it governs the analysis. Judge only whether it is clearly stated, justified and applied consistently; never whether its doctrinal, confessional or philosophical claims are true, which is not yours to adjudicate.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- names the framework precisely: the tradition, confession, doctrine, jurisprudence, school or position the study reasons from
- identifies the sources it treats as authoritative, and where they stand in relation to each other
- states the interpretive method applied to those sources, and why it suits this question
- says what work the framework does in the analysis — evidence, norm, interpretive lens, or the object of inquiry itself
- shows how it bears on the research questions, not merely that it is held
- where two or more frameworks are combined, states which governs which part of the analysis
- where two or more frameworks are combined, shows their underlying assumptions can hold together, or explains how the tension is handled rather than leaving it unremarked
- distinguishes itself from the theoretical and conceptual frameworks instead of repeating them

**Not judged here:**
- a defence of whether the tradition, doctrine or position is true — this section states what the study reasons from, not an apologetic for it
- a general literature review
- the research method or procedure, which belongs in Methodology
- findings or interpretation of data
- a second framework, where one is sufficient — combining frameworks is a choice, not a requirement

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-03.*

#### 48. Theological Framework `theological_framework` · v1

**Purpose:** Set out the discipline-specific framework the study reasons from — theological, legal, philosophical or another — and show how it governs the analysis. Judge only whether it is clearly stated, justified and applied consistently; never whether its doctrinal, confessional or philosophical claims are true, which is not yours to adjudicate.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- names the framework precisely: the tradition, confession, doctrine, jurisprudence, school or position the study reasons from
- identifies the sources it treats as authoritative, and where they stand in relation to each other
- states the interpretive method applied to those sources, and why it suits this question
- says what work the framework does in the analysis — evidence, norm, interpretive lens, or the object of inquiry itself
- shows how it bears on the research questions, not merely that it is held
- where two or more frameworks are combined, states which governs which part of the analysis
- where two or more frameworks are combined, shows their underlying assumptions can hold together, or explains how the tension is handled rather than leaving it unremarked
- distinguishes itself from the theoretical and conceptual frameworks instead of repeating them

**Not judged here:**
- a defence of whether the tradition, doctrine or position is true — this section states what the study reasons from, not an apologetic for it
- a general literature review
- the research method or procedure, which belongs in Methodology
- findings or interpretation of data
- a second framework, where one is sufficient — combining frameworks is a choice, not a requirement

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-03.*

## Research Proposal

#### 1. Title `title` · v5

**Purpose:** Identify the proposed study clearly enough for a scholarly reader to understand its subject, central research focus and necessary scope.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the actual subject, phenomenon, problem or object of enquiry
- communicates the proposed research focus at an appropriate level of specificity
- includes scope-defining information where necessary to identify the proposed study
- uses meaningful and searchable scholarly terminology
- is concise, readable and accurate to the proposed research

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clarity — can a scholarly reader identify the proposed study?
- Specificity — is it sufficiently focused without unnecessary restriction?
- Accuracy — does it represent what is actually proposed?
- Distinctiveness — does it distinguish the proposed study where needed?
- Searchability and disciplinary/genre appropriateness

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Population, corpus, location, period, tradition, denomination, case/object or other scope-defining information may be included when its absence would materially obscure the proposed study. Method or theoretical lens is not a default title component

**Not judged here:**
- research mode, methodology, discipline, tradition, epistemology, design and institutional requirements are used to judge applicability and fit; they are not automatically required in the title
- a particular title structure, question/statement form, methodology, research type, population, theoretical framework or fixed length

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 2. Opening / Hook `opening_hook` · v5

**Purpose:** Orient the reader to the research topic and establish its significance or intellectual interest.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- establishes the topic effectively
- provides enough orientation
- creates a clear transition to the research context/problem
- establishes relevance without exaggeration

**Evaluator tests:**
- Effective orientation and relevance
- Appropriate transition to the proposal’s research problem/question
- Rhetorical choices serve the academic purpose rather than replace it

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A rhetorical hook, statistic, quotation, scenario or current event may be useful but is not intrinsically required

**Not judged here:**
- a "hook" in the journalistic sense or a thesis statement asserting a conclusion the proposed research has not yet established

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 3. Background Context `background` · v5

**Purpose:** Establish the context from which the proposed research problem or question emerges.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- provides relevant context
- explains important developments or conditions
- narrows appropriately towards the proposed research
- avoids becoming a substitute for the literature review

**Evaluator tests:**
- Relevance — does the context help the reader understand the study?
- Progression — does it move towards the study’s specific concern appropriately?
- Sufficiency — is enough context supplied without unnecessary history or literature catalogue?
- Grounding — are factual/contextual claims appropriately supported?

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 4. Literature Review `literature_review` · v5

**Purpose:** Establish the current state of relevant scholarship and the intellectual conversation into which the proposed study enters.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies important scholarship
- synthesises rather than merely lists sources
- identifies debates, agreements and disagreements
- evaluates the adequacy and relevance of existing work
- establishes the basis for the proposed study

**Evaluator tests:**
- Relevant scholarship is identified and used analytically
- Synthesis and critical comparison
- Clear positioning of the study/paper in the scholarly conversation
- No unnecessary catalogue of sources

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 5. Research Gap(s) `research_gap` · v5

**Purpose:** Identify the unresolved scholarly issue that justifies the proposed study.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- follows from the literature
- identifies a specific unresolved issue
- explains why existing work is insufficient
- connects directly to the proposed research purpose/questions

**Evaluator tests:**
- Demonstration — is the gap established from relevant scholarship rather than merely asserted?
- Precision — is it clear what remains unresolved or under-examined?
- Legitimacy — is the claimed gap appropriate to the discipline and research type?
- Connection to the proposed scholarly contribution

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 6. Problem Statement `problem_statement` · v5

**Purpose:** Define the specific problem, puzzle, tension, uncertainty or deficiency the proposed research will address.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- is specific and researchable
- is grounded in relevant scholarship/evidence
- explains why it matters
- distinguishes the research problem from the general topic

**Evaluator tests:**
- Specificity — is the problem/puzzle/tension sufficiently defined?
- Researchability — does it create a legitimate reason for enquiry?
- Grounding — is the problem supported where evidence or scholarship is needed?
- Alignment with the study purpose/questions/argument

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 7. Theoretical / Conceptual Framework `framework` · v5

**Purpose:** Establish the theory, concepts or analytical lens that will guide the proposed enquiry where applicable.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the relevant framework
- justifies its relevance
- explains how it will guide the study
- connects it to questions, objectives, propositions or analysis

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clear theoretical/conceptual/analytical basis where applicable
- Justification and fit with the research task
- Actual use of the framework in analysis or interpretation

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A formal framework is not required for every research type

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 8. Disciplinary Framework `disciplinary_framework` · v2

**Purpose:** Set out the discipline-specific framework the study reasons from — theological, legal, philosophical or another — and show how it governs the analysis. Judge only whether it is clearly stated, justified and applied consistently; never whether its doctrinal, confessional or philosophical claims are true, which is not yours to adjudicate.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- names the framework precisely: the tradition, confession, doctrine, jurisprudence, school or position the study reasons from
- identifies the sources it treats as authoritative, and where they stand in relation to each other
- states the interpretive method applied to those sources, and why it suits this question
- says what work the framework does in the analysis — evidence, norm, interpretive lens, or the object of inquiry itself
- shows how it bears on the research questions, not merely that it is held
- where two or more frameworks are combined, states which governs which part of the analysis
- where two or more frameworks are combined, shows their underlying assumptions can hold together, or explains how the tension is handled rather than leaving it unremarked
- distinguishes itself from the theoretical and conceptual frameworks instead of repeating them

**Not judged here:**
- a defence of whether the tradition, doctrine or position is true — this section states what the study reasons from, not an apologetic for it
- a general literature review
- the research method or procedure, which belongs in Methodology
- findings or interpretation of data
- a second framework, where one is sufficient — combining frameworks is a choice, not a requirement

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-03.*

#### 9. Aim `aim` · v5

**Purpose:** State the overarching purpose of the proposed study.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- is coherent and focused
- directly addresses the problem/gap
- is realistic within the proposed scope
- is appropriately phrased for the research type

**Evaluator tests:**
- Coherence — is there a clear overarching purpose?
- Alignment with the problem/gap/intellectual task
- Appropriate breadth for the study
- Feasibility within the stated scope

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 10. Objectives `objectives` · v5

**Purpose:** Translate the proposed aim into manageable research tasks where objectives are used.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- are clear and distinct
- collectively support the aim
- are appropriate to the research type
- are assessable or otherwise meaningful

**Evaluator tests:**
- Distinctness — do the objectives represent genuinely different tasks where objectives are used?
- Collective alignment with the aim
- Appropriate specificity and assessability for the research type
- Coverage — together do they address the study’s intended work without unnecessary duplication?

**Not judged here:**
- exactly 3--5 objectives

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 11. Research Questions `research_questions` · v5

**Purpose:** State the questions the proposed research will investigate.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- arise from the problem/gap
- are researchable
- are appropriately focused
- align with the aim/objectives
- fit the proposed approach

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clarity and focus
- Answerability or examinability through the chosen mode of enquiry
- Alignment with the problem, aim and design/argument
- Appropriate number and structure for the research — not an arbitrary count

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- One central question, multiple questions, propositions, hypotheses or a governing research claim may be appropriate

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 12. Research Hypotheses `hypotheses` · v5

**Purpose:** State testable hypotheses or research propositions where the research design calls for them.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- are logically derived from the research problem, theory or prior evidence
- are testable/falsifiable when they are hypotheses
- specify relevant relationships, differences or expected patterns where appropriate
- align with the research questions/objectives
- are appropriately directional only where evidence warrants direction

**Evaluator tests:**
- Where hypotheses/propositions are appropriate, they are logically derived from the research problem and design
- They are stated in a form that can be examined using the proposed approach
- Alignment with questions/objectives and analysis
- No hypothesis is demanded where the research design does not call for one

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Hypotheses are not required for qualitative, exploratory, interpretive, historical, conceptual, philosophical, theological or other designs that do not test hypotheses

**Not judged here:**
- Do not report absence as an omission where hypotheses are not appropriate

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 13. Timeline `timeline` · v4

**Purpose:** Demonstrate that the proposed research is realistically schedulable.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- covers major research phases
- connects activities to objectives or deliverables where appropriate
- includes realistic milestones
- allows for approvals, data/material access, analysis and writing where applicable

**Evaluator tests:**
- Realistic sequencing of research phases
- Alignment with objectives and required approvals/fieldwork/writing
- Milestones are usable for project management

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- The exact format and detail depend on institutional requirements and project duration

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 14. Methodology `methodology` · v5

**Purpose:** Demonstrate that the proposed research can be carried out rigorously and can address the research task.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- approach and design/mode of enquiry
- relevant population, corpus, cases, sources or material
- selection/sampling where relevant
- data/material collection or acquisition
- analysis/interpretation
- quality/rigour
- ethical responsibilities
- The exact components depend on research type

**Evaluator tests:**
- Coherent account of the mode/design/procedures appropriate to the research
- Fit with the research questions/purpose
- Sufficient transparency about evidence/material, analysis and rigour
- Ethical issues addressed where relevant

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 15. Assumptions `assumptions` · v5

**Purpose:** Make important premises on which the proposed research depends explicit.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- relevant assumptions are clearly stated
- relevant assumptions are genuinely assumptions rather than conclusions
- relevant assumptions are reasonable within the research design or intellectual tradition
- relevant assumptions are distinguished from propositions that the study intends to test or investigate

**Evaluator tests:**
- Important premises are identified where they materially affect the study
- Assumptions are plausible and relevant to the design or reasoning
- Their implications are acknowledged

**Not judged here:**
- any one particular form — possible forms include methodological, epistemological, ontological, contextual, practical or theoretical
- assumptions in a separate section where they are adequately disclosed elsewhere

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 16. Context of the Study `context_of_study` · v5

**Purpose:** Establish the context necessary to understand the proposed research.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- geographical
- institutional
- cultural/social
- temporal
- professional
- textual/intellectual
- community or environmental context
- Only applicable dimensions should be included

**Evaluator tests:**
- Sufficient contextual information for understanding the proposed enquiry
- Relevance to the research problem and scope
- No unnecessary contextual digression

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 17. Significance of the Study `significance` · v5

**Purpose:** Explain why the proposed research is worth undertaking.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies plausible scholarly or other relevant contributions without promising outcomes that the research has not established

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clear account of why the work matters
- Appropriate type of significance for the research
- Specificity and plausibility of claimed value
- Proportionality — no inflated benefits beyond what the study can support

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Theoretical, practical, policy, professional, cultural and societal significance should be included only where relevant

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 18. Expected Outcomes / Implications `expected_outcomes` · v5

**Purpose:** State what the researcher reasonably expects the study to produce without presenting anticipated results as established facts.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies plausible forms of knowledge, understanding, analysis, model, interpretation or practical output
- remains appropriately tentative
- aligns with the research questions and design
- avoids prejudging the results

**Evaluator tests:**
- Appropriate anticipation of contribution, outcomes or implications without presenting unestablished results as facts
- Alignment with the research purpose and design
- Recognition of uncertainty where the research is exploratory

**Not judged here:**
- predicted findings in exploratory or interpretive research

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 19. Scope and Delimitations `scope` · v5

**Purpose:** Establish the intended boundaries of the proposed study.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- clearly identifies the relevant subject, evidence/corpus, population/cases, location, period, concepts or comparisons

**Evaluator tests:**
- Boundary clarity
- Coherence between boundaries and research purpose/questions/design
- Distinction between deliberate delimitations and externally imposed limitations
- No unnecessary exclusions or unexplained expansion of scope

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 20. Limitations `limitations` · v5

**Purpose:** Anticipate constraints that may affect the study's execution or claims.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies realistic substantive constraints
- explains their likely consequences
- distinguishes limitations from deliberate delimitations
- indicates mitigation where appropriate

**Evaluator tests:**
- Materiality — does the limitation actually affect interpretation or claims?
- Clear distinction from delimitations
- Explanation of consequences for the study’s warrant
- Mitigation or qualification where relevant

**Not judged here:**
- generic lists of every possible research difficulty

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 21. Ethical Considerations `ethics` · v5

**Purpose:** Demonstrate awareness of the ethical responsibilities associated with the proposed research.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- ethical approval or exemption; informed consent; confidentiality/anonymity; data protection and storage; risks and mitigation; vulnerable participants; conflicts of interest; cultural, community or religious sensitivities; intellectual property, permissions or ownership; responsible use of archives, texts, images or data; researcher positionality or reflexivity where ethically relevant; research integrity (where applicable)

**Evaluator tests:**
- Coverage of ethical issues actually raised by the research
- Appropriate approvals, permissions, consent, protection or integrity measures where relevant
- Attention to contextual, cultural, intellectual-property and positionality issues where applicable
- No invented participant requirements when no human-participant issue exists

**Not judged here:**
- participant consent procedures where there are no human participants and no equivalent ethical issue

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 22. Definition of Key Terms `definitions` · v5

**Purpose:** Clarify terms whose meaning is important to the proposed study.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- Use discipline-appropriate conceptual, working or operational definitions as applicable

**Evaluator tests:**
- Relevance — are only materially important terms clarified?
- Conceptual accuracy and disciplinary fit
- Resolution of ambiguity or contested meaning where needed
- Consistency between stated meanings and later use

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 23. Organisation / Roadmap `organisation` · v5

**Purpose:** Show how the proposed work will be organised.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- describes the planned major sections/chapters
- explains their sequence or intellectual relationship
- is consistent with the proposed research design

**Evaluator tests:**
- Accuracy of the roadmap
- Logical progression between parts
- Usefulness to the reader
- Consistency with the actual structure of the work

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 24. References `references` · v5

**Purpose:** Enable readers to identify and retrieve the sources used in the proposal under the applicable referencing requirements.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- applies the required referencing system consistently
- provides sufficiently complete and accurate bibliographic information
- allows sources to be retrieved
- maintains citation/reference correspondence where the applicable style requires it

**Evaluator tests:**
- Accuracy and completeness appropriate to the required style
- Consistency of citation/reference correspondence where required
- Retrievability and sufficient bibliographic detail
- Discipline, institution or publisher requirements are followed

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 25. Legal Framework `legal_framework` · v2

**Purpose:** Set out the discipline-specific framework the study reasons from — theological, legal, philosophical or another — and show how it governs the analysis. Judge only whether it is clearly stated, justified and applied consistently; never whether its doctrinal, confessional or philosophical claims are true, which is not yours to adjudicate.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- names the framework precisely: the tradition, confession, doctrine, jurisprudence, school or position the study reasons from
- identifies the sources it treats as authoritative, and where they stand in relation to each other
- states the interpretive method applied to those sources, and why it suits this question
- says what work the framework does in the analysis — evidence, norm, interpretive lens, or the object of inquiry itself
- shows how it bears on the research questions, not merely that it is held
- where two or more frameworks are combined, states which governs which part of the analysis
- where two or more frameworks are combined, shows their underlying assumptions can hold together, or explains how the tension is handled rather than leaving it unremarked
- distinguishes itself from the theoretical and conceptual frameworks instead of repeating them

**Not judged here:**
- a defence of whether the tradition, doctrine or position is true — this section states what the study reasons from, not an apologetic for it
- a general literature review
- the research method or procedure, which belongs in Methodology
- findings or interpretation of data
- a second framework, where one is sufficient — combining frameworks is a choice, not a requirement

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-03.*

#### 26. Philosophical Framework `philosophical_framework` · v2

**Purpose:** Set out the discipline-specific framework the study reasons from — theological, legal, philosophical or another — and show how it governs the analysis. Judge only whether it is clearly stated, justified and applied consistently; never whether its doctrinal, confessional or philosophical claims are true, which is not yours to adjudicate.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- names the framework precisely: the tradition, confession, doctrine, jurisprudence, school or position the study reasons from
- identifies the sources it treats as authoritative, and where they stand in relation to each other
- states the interpretive method applied to those sources, and why it suits this question
- says what work the framework does in the analysis — evidence, norm, interpretive lens, or the object of inquiry itself
- shows how it bears on the research questions, not merely that it is held
- where two or more frameworks are combined, states which governs which part of the analysis
- where two or more frameworks are combined, shows their underlying assumptions can hold together, or explains how the tension is handled rather than leaving it unremarked
- distinguishes itself from the theoretical and conceptual frameworks instead of repeating them

**Not judged here:**
- a defence of whether the tradition, doctrine or position is true — this section states what the study reasons from, not an apologetic for it
- a general literature review
- the research method or procedure, which belongs in Methodology
- findings or interpretation of data
- a second framework, where one is sufficient — combining frameworks is a choice, not a requirement

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-03.*

#### 27. Theological Framework `theological_framework` · v2

**Purpose:** Set out the discipline-specific framework the study reasons from — theological, legal, philosophical or another — and show how it governs the analysis. Judge only whether it is clearly stated, justified and applied consistently; never whether its doctrinal, confessional or philosophical claims are true, which is not yours to adjudicate.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- names the framework precisely: the tradition, confession, doctrine, jurisprudence, school or position the study reasons from
- identifies the sources it treats as authoritative, and where they stand in relation to each other
- states the interpretive method applied to those sources, and why it suits this question
- says what work the framework does in the analysis — evidence, norm, interpretive lens, or the object of inquiry itself
- shows how it bears on the research questions, not merely that it is held
- where two or more frameworks are combined, states which governs which part of the analysis
- where two or more frameworks are combined, shows their underlying assumptions can hold together, or explains how the tension is handled rather than leaving it unremarked
- distinguishes itself from the theoretical and conceptual frameworks instead of repeating them

**Not judged here:**
- a defence of whether the tradition, doctrine or position is true — this section states what the study reasons from, not an apologetic for it
- a general literature review
- the research method or procedure, which belongs in Methodology
- findings or interpretation of data
- a second framework, where one is sufficient — combining frameworks is a choice, not a requirement

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-03.*

## Journal Article

#### 1. Title `title` · v5

**Purpose:** Identify the article's subject and central scholarly focus clearly enough for a scholarly reader to understand and distinguish the article.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the actual subject or phenomenon rather than merely a broad topic
- communicates the central scholarly focus at an appropriate level of specificity
- includes necessary scope-defining information where its absence would materially obscure the article
- uses meaningful and searchable scholarly terminology
- is concise and readable
- avoids ambiguity that materially obscures the study

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clarity — can a scholarly reader identify what the article examines or argues?
- Specificity — is it sufficiently focused without unnecessary restriction?
- Accuracy — does it represent the actual article?
- Distinctiveness — does it distinguish the article where needed?
- Searchability — does it use meaningful scholarly terminology?
- Disciplinary/genre appropriateness — does it fit the field and article genre?
- Economy — is it concise without losing necessary identification?

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Population, corpus, location, period, tradition, denomination, specific object/case, relationship or other scope-defining information may be included when its absence would materially obscure the article's identity or focus. Method or theoretical lens may be included only when it materially distinguishes the article

**Not judged here:**
- article genre, research mode, methodology, discipline, tradition, epistemology, design and journal requirements are evaluation inputs. They must not be converted into automatic title requirements
- a particular title structure, question format, methodology, research type, population, relationship, theoretical framework, article structure or fixed length

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 2. Introduction `introduction` · v4

**Purpose:** Establish the scholarly territory, relevant problem/gap and purpose of the article.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- establishes the topic
- positions the article in relevant scholarship
- identifies the intellectual problem or opening
- states the article's purpose, question, thesis or contribution
- explains significance where appropriate

**Evaluator tests:**
- Orientation to the subject and central task
- Clear purpose/question/thesis/organising idea where appropriate
- Proportionate context and scholarly positioning
- A coherent transition into the main work

**Not judged here:**
- an empirical research gap or formal hypothesis in every article

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 3. Methods `methods` · v4

**Purpose:** Make the research procedure sufficiently transparent for readers to understand and evaluate how the evidence or material was produced and analysed.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- For empirical work evaluate design, setting, participants/material, procedure, analysis, quality and ethics as applicable
- For non-empirical articles, evaluate the relevant method of textual analysis, conceptual analysis, historical enquiry, doctrinal reasoning, comparative method or other mode of scholarship

**Evaluator tests:**
- Transparent account of methods appropriate to the article’s research type
- Fit with questions/purpose and evidence
- Sufficient detail for appropriate scholarly scrutiny or replication where applicable
- Ethics and analysis are addressed where relevant

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Apply only where the article involves a research method requiring such disclosure

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 4. Results `results` · v4

**Purpose:** Present the principal outcomes of the research or analysis.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- clearly communicates what the research established
- provides adequate evidence
- follows the article's analytical structure
- distinguishes evidence from interpretation where the genre requires that distinction

**Evaluator tests:**
- Outcomes are presented clearly and accurately
- Evidence is sufficient and appropriately organised
- Tables/figures/quotes are used only where they improve communication
- Interpretation is separated or integrated according to article genre

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A separate results section is not required in genres where analysis and interpretation are integrated

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 5. Discussion `discussion` · v4

**Purpose:** Explain the significance and meaning of the article's findings or argument in relation to scholarship and the article's purpose.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- interprets the principal outcomes
- engages relevant prior scholarship
- addresses important tensions or unexpected results
- avoids claims beyond the evidence or argument
- makes the contribution clear

**Evaluator tests:**
- Interpretive depth rather than mere repetition
- Direct engagement with the research purpose/questions/central argument
- Connection with relevant scholarship, concepts or theory where applicable
- Appropriate treatment of agreement, disagreement, surprise and uncertainty
- Claims remain within the warrant of the evidence/reasoning

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 6. Conclusion `conclusion` · v4

**Purpose:** Bring the article to a justified final position.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- answers the article's question or fulfils its purpose
- states the principal contribution
- identifies warranted implications
- avoids introducing unsupported new material

**Evaluator tests:**
- The central task is brought to a justified close
- Conclusions follow from the preceding analysis/argument
- Importance is stated proportionately
- No unsupported new evidence or argument

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 7. Abstract `abstract` · v4

**Purpose:** Provide a self-contained representation of the article.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- according to the article genre and journal requirements

**Evaluator tests:**
- Coverage — does it represent the central purpose/issue, approach where relevant, principal outcome and conclusion/contribution?
- Fidelity — does it accurately represent the work rather than promise or invent results?
- Self-containment and economy
- Compliance with applicable genre/word-limit requirements

**Not judged here:**
- empirical results, methods or a particular structure where the article genre does not use them

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 8. References `references` · v4

**Purpose:** Enable readers to identify and retrieve the sources used in the article under the applicable journal, discipline and style requirements.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- applies the required referencing system consistently
- provides sufficiently complete and accurate bibliographic information
- allows sources to be retrieved
- maintains citation/reference correspondence where the applicable style requires it

**Evaluator tests:**
- Accuracy and completeness appropriate to the required style
- Consistency of citation/reference correspondence where required
- Retrievability and sufficient bibliographic detail
- Discipline, institution or publisher requirements are followed

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

## Term Paper

#### 1. Title `title` · v4

**Purpose:** Identify the paper's subject and, where relevant, its analytical or argumentative focus.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the actual subject or question rather than merely a broad topic
- communicates the central analytical or argumentative focus where the assignment has one
- includes necessary scope-defining information where needed to identify the paper
- uses meaningful terminology and remains concise and readable

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clarity — can a reader identify the paper's subject and task?
- Specificity — is it sufficiently focused without unnecessary restriction?
- Accuracy — does it represent what the paper actually does?
- Distinctiveness — does it distinguish the paper where needed?
- Searchability and disciplinary/assignment fit

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A stated position, claim or argumentative focus is relevant only where the assignment is genuinely argumentative

**Not judged here:**
- assignment type, discipline, research mode and institutional requirements guide evaluation but are not themselves title components

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 2. Introduction `introduction` · v4

**Purpose:** Orient the reader and establish the paper's central purpose, question, thesis or organising idea.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the subject
- establishes relevance or context
- states the central claim/question/purpose where appropriate
- gives sufficient orientation

**Evaluator tests:**
- Orientation to the subject and central task
- Clear purpose/question/thesis/organising idea where appropriate
- Proportionate context and scholarly positioning
- A coherent transition into the main work

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 3. Background / Context `background` · v4

**Purpose:** Provide information necessary for understanding the subsequent analysis.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- supplies relevant context
- defines necessary concepts or events
- remains proportionate to the paper's main task

**Evaluator tests:**
- Relevance — does the context help the reader understand the study?
- Progression — does it move towards the study’s specific concern appropriately?
- Sufficiency — is enough context supplied without unnecessary history or literature catalogue?
- Grounding — are factual/contextual claims appropriately supported?

**Not judged here:**
- a separate background section if the introduction provides sufficient context

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 4. Argument & Analysis `argument` · v4

**Purpose:** Develop the paper's central analysis, interpretation, comparison, explanation or argument.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- claims are clear
- reasoning is explicit
- evidence or sources are appropriate
- analysis goes beyond description where analysis is required
- sections contribute to the central task
- conclusions follow from the reasoning

**Evaluator tests:**
- Claims and reasoning are explicit
- Evidence/source use is appropriate
- The analysis advances the central task rather than merely describing material
- Conclusions follow from the reasoning

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Not every term paper is an argument-driven paper

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 5. Counterargument & Response `counterargument` · v4

**Purpose:** Engage significant alternative interpretations, objections or perspectives where doing so strengthens the paper.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- relevant alternatives are represented fairly
- important objections are addressed
- the response is reasoned

**Evaluator tests:**
- Relevant alternatives or objections are fairly represented where useful
- The response engages the strongest materially relevant challenge
- Concessions and rebuttals are reasoned rather than rhetorical

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A separate counterargument section is not required where the assignment does not call for adversarial argument or where alternative perspectives are more appropriately integrated

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 6. Conclusion `conclusion` · v4

**Purpose:** Bring the paper's analysis or argument to a justified close.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- answers the central question or reinforces the warranted conclusion
- identifies why the conclusion matters
- avoids introducing unsupported new arguments

**Evaluator tests:**
- The central task is brought to a justified close
- Conclusions follow from the preceding analysis/argument
- Importance is stated proportionately
- No unsupported new evidence or argument

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 7. References `references` · v4

**Purpose:** Enable readers to identify and retrieve the sources used in the paper under the applicable assignment, discipline and style requirements.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- applies the required referencing system consistently
- provides sufficiently complete and accurate bibliographic information
- allows sources to be retrieved
- maintains citation/reference correspondence where the applicable style requires it

**Evaluator tests:**
- Accuracy and completeness appropriate to the required style
- Consistency of citation/reference correspondence where required
- Retrievability and sufficient bibliographic detail
- Discipline, institution or publisher requirements are followed

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

## Paper Review

#### 1. Title `title` · v4

**Purpose:** Clearly identify the work being reviewed and, where useful, the nature of the review.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the reviewed work accurately
- makes the review subject clear
- adds a review descriptor only where useful to distinguish the document

**Evaluator tests:**
- Clarity — can the reader identify what work is being reviewed?
- Accuracy — does the title identify the reviewed work correctly?
- Specificity — is additional scope needed to distinguish it?
- Genre fit and searchability

**Not judged here:**
- whether the document is a peer review, critical review, review essay or assignment determines how the title is judged; that classification is not itself a required title element
- an explicit overall judgement, accept/revise/reject decision or methodological label in the title

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 2. Summary of the Paper `summary` · v4

**Purpose:** Represent the reviewed work accurately enough for the reader to understand what it attempts and claims.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the research question/purpose or thesis
- accurately represents relevant method/mode of enquiry
- summarises principal findings, argument or contribution
- remains fair and proportionate
- distinguishes summary from the reviewer's appraisal where the genre requires that separation

**Evaluator tests:**
- Accurate representation of the reviewed paper
- Fairness and proportion
- Clear distinction between summary and appraisal where appropriate

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 3. Significance & Contribution `contribution` · v4

**Purpose:** Evaluate what the reviewed work contributes relative to relevant scholarship or practice.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the claimed contribution
- assesses its distinctiveness in context
- considers whether the evidence/argument supports the contribution
- distinguishes novelty from mere topic importance

**Evaluator tests:**
- Specificity — what is actually added?
- Grounding in the study’s results, argument or analysis
- Appropriate contribution type for the discipline/research mode
- Proportionality — neither trivial nor inflated

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 4. Methodology Appraisal `methodology` · v4

**Purpose:** Evaluate whether the paper's method or mode of enquiry is appropriate to its research task.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies the methodological or scholarly basis that the reviewed paper actually uses
- evaluates its fit with the paper's research task
- assesses the adequacy of evidence/material selection and analysis where applicable
- considers transparency, rigour and ethics where applicable
- For empirical papers this may include research design, sampling, measurement and data analysis. For non-empirical scholarship it may instead involve source selection, textual analysis, historical method, doctrinal reasoning, conceptual analysis, theoretical reasoning or another appropriate mode. These are alternatives, not a checklist

**Evaluator tests:**
- Coherent account of the mode/design/procedures appropriate to the research
- Fit with the research questions/purpose
- Sufficient transparency about evidence/material, analysis and rigour
- Ethical issues addressed where relevant

**Not judged here:**
- empirical-method criteria for non-empirical scholarship

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 5. Strengths `strengths` · v4

**Purpose:** Identify substantive strengths that can be demonstrated from the reviewed work.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies specific strengths
- explains why each matters
- connects strengths to the paper's purpose
- avoids generic praise

**Evaluator tests:**
- Strengths are specific and evidenced
- Relevance to the paper’s purpose is explained
- Praise is analytical rather than generic

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 6. Weaknesses & Gaps `weaknesses` · v4

**Purpose:** Identify substantive weaknesses or unresolved issues fairly and explain their consequences.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- identifies specific weaknesses
- explains their effect on the paper's claims
- distinguishes fatal/substantive issues from improvable issues where that distinction matters
- judges the paper against its stated purpose and appropriate disciplinary standards
- passes the False-Fault Test

**Evaluator tests:**
- Criticisms are specific and consequential
- The paper is judged against its own purpose and applicable disciplinary standards
- Serious versus improvable issues are distinguished where useful
- False-fault test is passed before criticism is reported

**Not judged here:**
- Do not criticise a paper merely because it is not a different kind of paper

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 7. Overall Assessment & Recommendation `recommendation` · v4

**Purpose:** Provide an overall appraisal appropriate to the review genre.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- provides an overall appraisal proportionate to the evidence and the review genre
- identifies the principal grounds for the appraisal
- provides a recommendation only where the review genre calls for one

**Evaluator tests:**
- Any recommendation follows from the appraisal and the genre actually being performed
- The grounds are specific and proportionate
- Peer-review decisions are not imposed on a non-peer-review assignment

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- A journal peer review may require accept/revise/reject or equivalent recommendation
- An academic review assignment may instead require a reasoned overall evaluation without an editorial recommendation

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

#### 8. References `references` · v4

**Purpose:** Enable readers to identify and retrieve the sources used in the review under the applicable review, discipline and style requirements.

**A competent version accomplishes:**
- applies the required referencing system consistently
- provides sufficiently complete and accurate bibliographic information
- allows sources to be retrieved
- maintains citation/reference correspondence where the applicable style requires it

**Evaluator tests:**
- Accuracy and completeness appropriate to the required style
- Consistency of citation/reference correspondence where required
- Retrievability and sufficient bibliographic detail
- Discipline, institution or publisher requirements are followed

**Conditional — only where it applies:**
- Exact reference-list conventions depend on the discipline, institution, publisher and applicable style

**Not judged here:**
- one universal citation system or a universal rule about whether every consulted source must appear

*Approved by Academic Supervisor Board, 2026-09-18.*

## Literature grounding

The sources the Board's specification draws on, as recorded. A source marked *verified* has been opened by a named person and found as recorded; one marked *not yet verified* is entered as supplied and awaits that check. The briefs' Required / Conditional judgements are the Board's synthesis, not any one author's classification, so no brief cites a source to a student.

1. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). *Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches* (6th ed). SAGE Publications. — *not yet verified*
   Used for the principle that research approach, research questions, purpose, hypotheses and design should be aligned, and that qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods research require differentiated expectations. The text explicitly presents the three approaches comparatively and encourages selection according to the research question rather than imposing one approach on all studies. This supports the adaptive logic of this specification.

2. Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2024). *The Craft of Research* (5th ed). University of Chicago Press. — *not yet verified*
   Used for the general scholarly logic connecting significant topics, research questions, sources, arguments and communication. Its recognition that research may be conducted and communicated in different ways supports a function-first rather than template-first evaluation model.

3. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). *Academic Writing for Graduate Students* (3rd ed). University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173936 — *not yet verified*
   Used for genre awareness, audience, rhetorical purpose, summaries, critiques, research articles and the organisation of academic writing. This supports evaluating sections according to communicative function and genre rather than assuming that every academic document follows one structure.

4. Hart, C. (2026). *Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Research Imagination* (2nd ed). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781036234454 — *verified*
   Used for the literature-review components of searching, evaluating, organising and critically using scholarship. The specification therefore treats literature review as analytical work rather than a catalogue of sources.

5. Ridley, D. (2012). *The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students* (2nd ed). SAGE Publications. — *not yet verified*
   Used for the expectations surrounding systematic searching, evaluation and presentation of literature in postgraduate research. Its cross-disciplinary examples reinforce the need to evaluate reviews for their scholarly function, not merely for a fixed sequence of headings.

6. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). *Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach* (3rd ed). SAGE Publications. — *verified*
   Used as a qualitative-design counterweight to predominantly quantitative frameworks, especially for the alignment among goals, conceptual framework, research questions, methods and validity.

7. Silverman, D. (2024). *Interpreting Qualitative Data* (7th ed). SAGE Publications. — *not yet verified*
   Used to reinforce that qualitative enquiry has its own approaches to design, credibility, ethics, analysis and reporting, including work with interviews, documents, digital data and visual data.

8. Yin, R. K. (2017). *Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods* (6th ed). SAGE Publications. — *not yet verified*
   Used for the case-study-specific treatment of research design, case definition, logic of enquiry and evidence. It is therefore treated as a conditional methodological source, not a universal standard.

9. Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L., & Bryman, A. (2021). *Bryman's Social Research Methods* (6th ed). Oxford University Press. — *not yet verified*
   Used for the breadth of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods social research, including research questions, designs, literature reviewing, ethics and sampling. Its scope helps identify which criteria are method-dependent.

10. American Psychological Association (2019). *Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association* (7th ed). American Psychological Association. — *not yet verified*
   Used only where APA-style scholarly writing, reporting, citation, reference lists, ethics, tables/figures or journal reporting standards are relevant. APA is **not** treated as a universal disciplinary style rule.

11. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. *Human Resource Development Review*, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283 — *not yet verified*
   Used to support the treatment of integrative reviews as a distinct form of scholarly synthesis in which the purpose and organising logic of the review matter.

12. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines. *Journal of Business Research*, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 — *not yet verified*
   Used to distinguish literature review as a possible research methodology from the broader use of literature reviewing within another study.

13. Hyland, K., & Zou, H. (2022). Titles in research articles. *Journal of English for Academic Purposes*, 56, 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101094 — *not yet verified*
   analysed 5,070 research-article titles across six fields and found substantial disciplinary differences in title structure, length and focus. This supports treating title form and methodological information as context-dependent rather than universal.

14. Grant, M. J. (2013). What makes a good title?. *Health Information & Libraries Journal*, 30(4), 259–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12049 — *not yet verified*
   supports the general qualities of informative, specific, searchable and concise titles. Its more design-specific advice is treated as field-sensitive rather than universal.