All students in the program are required to complete an empirical paper as their first milestone in the program. Your primary research mentor supports students in this process by working closely with them on formulating and implementing the research project. Students attend a biweekly second-year project seminar during their first two years of study. Students are also required to present initial ideas and progress on the paper at least once per year during the PSI colloquium, beginning in year 1. Below are the goals, policies, procedures, and timelines for this paper.
Goals:
To provide an initial individual experience in the research process in which the student learns to:
Develop an idea in the context of extant theory and research;
Design a study and employ the appropriate analytic techniques to test the hypotheses/questions of interest; and
Write the study in the format and quality of a publishable journal article.
Process, Procedures, & Format:
Students select a primary research mentor by the end of the third week of classes. This person will serve as the primary mentor for the second-year paper. The primary mentor should be a core member or formal affiliate of the PSI faculty, but students can appeal to the program director via email or meeting to have a full-time faculty member within Applied Psychology as their primary research mentor. The appeal should be accompanied by a strong rationale. In this instance, the second reader (see more on second readers below) must be a core member of the PSI faculty.
Students also attend the weekly second-year project seminar in both their first and second years. (While this course spans both semesters, only one of those semesters will be taken for credit--please consult course guidelines to determine in which semesters it should be taken for credit). You work in collaboration with your primary mentor, other students, and the seminar instructor and, later, with your second reader to develop the second-year paper. The completion of the second-year paper occurs in two phases: the proposal phase and the paper phase. The specific processes, procedures and formats for each phase are outlined separately below. For all written products, the expectation is that you establish with your primary mentor a schedule of multiple drafts, feedback, and revisions that allows for multiple iterations and incorporates the process and timeline for soliciting and integrating second reader(s) review(s).
Second-Year Paper Timeline Overview
Proposal Phase
a. A proposal is to be developed with, and approved by, the primary mentor and second reader by the first day of classes AY2. Please note that this final deadline assumes multiple prior revisions and iterations of the proposal with the primary mentor and second reader. It also assumes that you will meet the guidelines and deadlines for written products supporting your proposal/paper development as described in your second year project seminar syllabus.
b. The proposal is typically in the format of the introduction (importance of issue, literature review, gaps in literature, hypotheses/questions), methods (sample, measures, etc.), and planned analyses sections of a journal article. This proposal should be no more than 25 pages. Students should note that the proposal includes substantial preliminary data analyses, particularly around sample characteristics, missing data and measurement.
c. The project seminar instructor provides feedback and guidance, but does not officially approve the proposal, unless s/he is also the primary mentor or second reader.
d. The second reader is decided upon with the collaboration and consent of the primary mentor. It is expected that the student will approach their primary mentor in the beginning of the second semester to identify the second reader and outline a plan and timeline for her/his involvement in the development and/or review of the proposal.
e. The expectation is that students will have a complete draft of their proposal by mid-May AY1 (that has already been reviewed multiple times by their primary mentor). This timing allows ample time for additional suggestions and revisions from the primary mentor and second reader to be incorporated before the final due date of the first day of classes AY2.
f. Official approval of the second year paper proposal by both the primary mentor and second reader is indicated by their signature on the second-year paper proposal approval form. Students must send a PDF of the signed form accompanied by the final approved proposal via email to the program director and administrative assistant, cc’ing their primary mentor and second reader by the first day of their second academic year.
Paper Phase
a. The full second year paper is to be developed with, and approved by, the primary mentor and second reader by June 15th following AY2. Please note that this final deadline assumes multiple prior revisions and iterations of the proposal with the primary mentor and second reader. It also assumes that you will meet the guidelines and deadlines for written products supporting your proposal/paper development as described in your second year project seminar syllabus.
b. The second-year paper is to be written in the form of a journal article (title page, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, references, tables/figures), and needs to fall in the range of pages that most journals accept (i.e., 25-40 double spaced pages, all-inclusive). It is to be written according to current APA style guidelines. Any additional documentation is to be included in the appendices.
c. As with the proposal, the project seminar instructor provides feedback and guidance on the paper, but does not officially approve the paper, unless s/he is also the primary mentor or second reader.
d. Students are expected to work proactively with their mentor to establish a process and timeline for review of multiple drafts of the analyses and text by both their primary mentor and their second reader.
e. The expectation is that students will have a complete draft of their paper by the Monday after Spring Break of AY2 that has already been reviewed multiple times by their primary mentor (and potentially by their second reader as well). This timing allows ample time for additional suggestions and revisions from the primary mentor and second reader to be incorporated by the final due date of June 15th following AY2.
f. Official approval of the second year paper by both the primary mentor and second reader is indicated by their signature on the second-year paper approval form. Students must send a PDF of the signed form accompanied by the final approved paper via email to the program director and administrative assistant, cc’ing their primary mentor and second reader by June 15th following AY2. Failure to do so will result in the student being officially “not in good standing” in the program.
Criteria For Second Year Paper:
Introduction:
The problem is clearly stated in the introduction.
The introduction presents theoretical frameworks relevant to the research question.
The literature review presents what is known and not known about the research question.
The potential unique contribution of the study is clearly identified.
Methods:
The procedures are clearly described.
The sample is clearly described and is appropriate for the study question/s.
The measures are appropriate and adequate. Information about the measures is provided: identify sample items and provide evidence of psychometric properties.
Study hypotheses are clear.
Analytic plan is clearly developed, including descriptive information and preliminary findings if relevant.
The analysis is appropriate for the research question and correctly implemented.
Results:
Full analysis and results are described clearly.
The tables and accompanying text clearly present findings.
Discussion:
The discussion section is well organized.
The major and most important findings are described and situated within the relevant literature.
The discussion considers (and rules out) some plausible alternative explanations for findings.
Inferences are appropriate (statements do not go beyond data).
Strengths and limitations are discussed.
Implications of the study vis-à-vis the proposed unique contribution are articulated.
Note: All four sections should be tightly aligned with one another.