MDIA5031 Research in Practice
The Complete Study & Assessment Guide · T3 2026MDIA5031 Overview
- Postgraduate course
- Term 3 2026
- Three linked assessments
- Moodle course site
MDIA5031 Research in Practice develops a complete small-scale media research project. The course begins with research foundations, ethics and cultural context, then builds focused research questions, a synthesised literature review and a theoretical framework.
- Assessment path Diary to proposal to research paper
- Method choice Interviews, content analysis or discourse analysis
- Quality test Align question, evidence, analysis and claim
How MDIA5031 is assessed
| Component | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Research Diary · hurdle | 10% | Individual research diary, 500 words; establishes questions, theme alignment and academic sources |
| Research Proposal · hurdle | 40% | Individual proposal, 1500 words; theory, literature, questions, one permitted method and significance |
| Major Research Paper · hurdle | 50% | Individual research paper, 2000 words; implements the project and reports method, findings, implications and appendix evidence |
What MDIA5031 covers
Follow a research project from ethical foundations and focused questions through literature synthesis, theory, proposal design, method, analysis, findings and implications.
Research Foundations and Ethics
Ethics, knowledge, reflexivity and research responsibility02Research Questions and Scope
Focused questions, boundaries, feasibility and method fit03Literature Review and Theory
Synthesis, research gaps and analytical frameworks04Building a Feasible Proposal
Rationale, alignment, method choice and implementation05Interview Design and Consent
Recruitment, consent, prompts, probes and transcripts06Thematic Analysis of Interviews
Coding, pattern development, themes and interpretation07Content Analysis Design
Corpus, sampling, units, categories and contextual meaning08Codebooks and Coding Decisions
Definitions, decision rules, pilots and audit trails09Critical and Multimodal Discourse
Language, images, ideology, norms and power relations10Evidence, Findings and Implications
Results, analysis, discussion, limits and appendicesStudents choose among interviews, content analysis and discourse analysis, develop a feasible proposal, collect and analyse evidence, and report findings and implications with an originality trail. The three assessments form one sequence: a Research Diary establishes the early question and sources, a Research Proposal justifies the design, and a Major Research Paper implements and reports the study.
All tasks must be attempted. The course materials permit simple editing and referencing assistance but prohibit generated or paraphrased submission passages. A strong project keeps its internal logic visible.
The question determines what evidence is relevant; the framework supplies concepts for design or interpretation; the method explains how material is selected and analysed; and the conclusion remains within the sample and inference boundary. Interview projects document consent, recruitment, prompts, recording, transcription and thematic development.
Content-analysis projects define the corpus, sampling route, unit, categories, codebook and pilot decisions. Critical or multimodal discourse projects describe linguistic and visual features before connecting recurring patterns to ideology, norms or power.
Across all routes, the paper separates observation from interpretation, uses evidence economically, compares findings with scholarship and preserves an appendix trail that demonstrates originality. Feedback should therefore be treated as design information: record what changed after the diary or proposal and make the final method describe the project actually conducted.
Keep a dated decision log so the submitted account can explain how evidence, ethical safeguards and analytical boundaries changed during the project.
Narrow a topic into an answerable research question
- +1Bound the phenomenon, platform or corpus and period.
- +1Use a question verb that content or discourse analysis can answer.
- +1State the evidence and the limit of the claim.
Key terms
- Research question
- A focused, answerable question that specifies the phenomenon and directs evidence selection and analysis.
- Literature synthesis
- A comparison of claims, concepts, methods and limits that establishes what is known and where a study can contribute.
- Theoretical framework
- A set of concepts and relationships used to guide design and interpret evidence.
- Unit of analysis
- The entity to which a coding or analytical decision is applied, such as a post, article, image or speaker turn.
- Codebook
- A documented set of variables, values, definitions and decision rules used to code evidence consistently.
- Thematic analysis
- An interpretive process for developing patterns of meaning from coded qualitative material.
- Content analysis
- A systematic method for classifying communication within a defined corpus and explaining observed patterns.
- Critical discourse analysis
- An approach that links textual choices to discourse, ideology, institutional practice and power.
- Multimodal analysis
- Analysis of how language, image, layout, typography and other modes combine to construct meaning.
- Reflexivity
- Ongoing examination of how the researcher’s position and decisions shape the research process and interpretation.
MDIA5031 FAQ
How are the assessments connected?
The Research Diary establishes an early question and sources, the Research Proposal turns that foundation into a feasible design, and the Major Research Paper implements and reports the project. Treat feedback and design decisions as a continuous record rather than three unrelated tasks.
Which research methods can I use?
The proposal brief permits interviews, content analysis or discourse analysis. Choose by matching the question to the kind of evidence and claim each method can support, then keep collection and analysis feasible within the teaching period.
What makes a strong research question?
A strong question is focused, answerable with obtainable evidence, ethically workable and aligned with a permitted method. It does not assume its conclusion, and its boundaries make clear what the project can and cannot claim.
How should theory appear in the project?
The framework should provide concepts that shape the question, selection, coding or interpretation. Name what the lens reveals, use it during analysis, and recognise what it may leave outside view.
What belongs in a codebook?
Record the unit, variable or code, operational definition, values, inclusion and exclusion rules, examples and a process for ambiguous cases. Pilot the scheme and document revisions before full coding.
Can I use generative AI for the assessments?
The captured assessment briefs permit simple editing and referencing assistance but prohibit functions that generate or paraphrase passages. Complete the required declaration and keep the research reasoning and submitted prose your own.
What should the appendix demonstrate?
The appendix preserves evidence of originality and the analytic trail. Depending on the method, it may include raw data, coding files, links and screenshots, interview transcripts and audio, or other materials required by the brief.
How to prepare for the assessments
Build the project as a chain of reviewable decisions. First stabilise the question, scope, ethical boundary and literature gap. Next state what the theoretical framework contributes and choose the method that can produce suitable evidence. Pilot interview prompts or coding rules before full collection, and keep a decision log when ambiguity forces a revision.
During analysis, separate observation from interpretation and connect each pattern to the research question. Draft the method from the record of what you actually did, not from the earlier proposal alone. Finish by checking that results, implications, limitations and appendix evidence agree.
Because the tasks are linked and all must be attempted, use feedback from each stage to improve the next one while preserving your own authorship under the course AI rules.
