STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK

I understand that Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01) holds learners accountable for the integrity of work they submit, which includes, but is not limited to, discussion postings, assignments, comprehensive exams, and the dissertation. Learners are expected to understand the Policy and know that it is their responsibility to learn about instructor and general academic expectations with regard to proper citation of sources in written work as specified in the APA Publication Manual, 6th Ed. Serious sanctions can result from violations of any type of the Academic Honesty Policy including dismissal from the university.

I attest that this document represents my own work. Where I have used the ideas of others, I have paraphrased and given credit according to the guidelines of the APA Publication Manual, 6th Ed. Where I have used the words of others, (i.e. direct quotes), I have followed the guidelines for using direct quotes prescribed by the APA Publication Manual, 6th Ed.

I have read, understood, and abided by Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01). I further understand that Capella University takes plagiarism seriously; regardless of intention, the result is the same.

Signature for Statement of Original Work
Learner NameMentor Name
Learner EmailMentor Email
Learner IDDate

School of Education Research Plan: Action Research

Research Plan Process

You will use this form in obtaining approval for Milestones 2-5. The goals of this process are to: (1) facilitate the planning of the details of your research study, (2) allow for scientific merit review and (3) facilitate your progress through dissertation completion. You must obtain approval of this form, your Research Plan (RP) before seeking IRB approval, collecting data, and writing your full dissertation or any of your chapters. Approval of this Research Plan (RP) satisfies Milestone 5; indicating that the Research Plan (RP) has passed the “scientific merit review,” part of the IRB process.

Scientific Merit the following criteria will be used to establish scientific merit. The purpose of the review will be to evaluate if the study:

1. Advances the scientific knowledge base.

2. Makes a contribution to research theory.  

3. Demonstrates understanding of theories and approaches related to your selected methodology.

**Obtaining Scientific Merit approval for your Research Plan (RP) does not guarantee you will obtain IRB approval. A detailed ethical review will be conducted during the process of IRB approval.

How to Use This Form

This Research Plan (RP) form is intended to help you plan the details of your EdD Dissertation. It provides a space for you and your mentor to work out all the details of your design. Once you have obtained Research Plan (RP) approval, you should be able to easily expand on the information you have submitted here and write the dissertation chapters because these sections follow the outline of the Dissertation Chapters 1-3. It is recommended that you use this form in a step-by-step way to help you design your study. Expect that you will go through several revisions before obtaining approval this form. Research Planning is an iterative process, each revision often sparking the need for further revisions until everything is aligned. These iterations and revisions are a necessary and customary part of the research process.

Specialization Chair’s Approval after Section 1

When you have completed Section 1 along with initial references in section 3, send the Research Plan (RP) to your mentor for review. When your mentor considers it is ready, he or she submits it to your Specialization Chair. The Chair approves the topic as appropriate within your specialization. You then go on to complete the remaining sections of the Research Plan (RP).

Do’s and Don’ts

· Do use the correct form! This Research Plan is for Action Research designs. Do prepare your answers in a separate Word document. Editing and revising will be easier.

· Set font formatting to Times New Roman, 11 point, regular style font. Do set paragraph indentation (“Format” menu) for no indentation, no spacing.

· Do copy/paste items into the designated fields when they are ready.

· Don’t delete the descriptions in the left column!

· Don’t lock the form. That will stop you from editing and revising within the form.

· Do complete the “Learner Information” (A) of the first table, and Section 1 first.

· Don’t skip items or sections. If an item does not apply to your study, type “NA” in its field.

· Do read the item descriptions and their respective Instructions carefully. Items request very specific information. Be sure you understand what is asked. (Good practice for IRB!)

· Do use primary sources to the greatest extent possible as references. Textbooks or dissertations are not acceptable as the only references supporting methodological and design choices.

· Do submit a revisedRPif, after approval, you change your design elements. It may not need a second review, but should be on file before your IRB application is submitted.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Complete the following steps to request scientific merit approval (SMR) for your RP.

Topic Approval – Milestone 2

1. Develop topic and methodological approach:

· Talk with your mentor about your ideas for your dissertation topic and a methodological approach.

· Collaborate with your mentor to refine your topic into a specific research study that will add to the existing scholarly literature on your topic.

2. Complete Section 1 of the RP form.

· Complete Section 1 addressing the topic and intervention and e-mail the form to your mentor for approval. Follow the instructions carefully.

· Collaborate with your mentor until you have mentor approval for the topic. After you have received mentor approval for Section 1, your mentor will submit this form to your Specialization Chair for topic approval via the Dissertation Support Center (DSC).

· The Specialization Chair will notify the DSC of the specialization’s decision. The DSC will email a formal approval notice to you and your mentor. The Specialization Chair may notify you and your mentor of their decision before you receive the approval notice from the DSC.

· If the topic is not approved, the DSC will send the deferral notice to your mentor. Your mentor will notify you about the deferral and help you understand the revisions that need to be made for approval.

Mentor Approval – Milestones 3 and Committee Approval – Milestone 4

3. Complete the remaining Research Plan Sections.

· After your Specialization Chair approves the topic, continue to collaborate with your mentor to plan the details of your research approach.

· Once you and your mentor have agreed on clear plans for the details of the research approach, complete the remainder of the RP form, and submit the completed RP form to your mentor for approval.

· Expect that you will go through several revisions. Collaborate with your mentor until you have his or her approval of your RP.

· After you have a polished version, you and your mentor should both review the RP criteria for each section, to ensure you have provided the requisite information to demonstrate you have met each of the scientific merit criteria.

4. After your mentor has approved your RP (Milestone 3), she or he will forward your RP to your Committee for their approval (Milestone 4).

· After you have obtained mentor AND committee approvals of the completed RP, your mentor will submit the completed RP via the DSC to have your plan reviewed for Scientific Merit by the School of Education.

· Mentor and committee approval does not guarantee RP approval. Each review is independent and serves to ensure your RP demonstrates research competency.

Milestone 5 – School of Education approval of Research Plan

5. After you have obtained mentor (Milestone 3) AND committee (Milestone 4) approvals of the completed RP form, your mentor will submit the completed RP via the DSC to have your form reviewed for scientific merit.

a) RP form in review: The scientific merit reviewer will review each item to determine whether you have met each of the criteria. You must meet all the criteria to obtain reviewer approval. The reviewer will designate your RP as one of the following:

· Approved

· Deferred for minor or major revisions

· Not ready for review

You will be notified by the DSC once your RP is approved.

b) If the RP is deferred:

· If your RP is deferred for major or minor revisions, or is not ready for review, the DSC will notify your mentor.

· The SMR reviewer will provide feedback to your mentor on any criteria that you have not met.

· Your mentor will review the feedback with you to be sure that you understand what revisions are needed.

· You are required to make the necessary revisions and obtain approval for the revisions from your mentor.

· Once you have mentor approval for your revisions, your mentor will submit your RP for a second review via the DSC.

· Up to three attempts to obtain scientific merit approval (SMR) are allowed. Researchers, mentors, and reviewers should make every possible attempt to resolve issues before the RP is failed for the third time.

c) If your RP does not pass the scientific merit review on the third attempt, then the case will be referred to the research specialists and the Research Chair in the School of Education for review, evaluation, and intervention. While you await approval of your RP, you should be working to complete your Institutional Review Board (IRB) application and supporting documents. Once you have gained SMR approval (Milestone 5), you are ready to submit your Institutional Review Board (IRB) application and supporting documents for review by Capella University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) Committee.

Milestone 6 – Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval

6. Submit the Approved RP to the IRB:

· Once you obtain RP approval of the completed RP, write your IRB application and accompanying materials.

· Consult the Institutional Review Board page on iGuide for IRB forms and detailed process directions.

· You are required to obtain RP approval before you may receive IRB approval. Obtaining RP approval does not guarantee that IRB approval will follow.

Milestone 7 – Pre-Data Collection Conference Call

7. Complete the Research Plan Conference call:

· Once you have gained approval by the IRB, you are ready to schedule your Pre-Data Collection Conference Call. You may not proceed to data collection until you have completed this conference call.

· Work with your mentor and committee to set a date for the conference call.

· Upon successful completion of the Pre-Data Collection Conference Call, your mentor will complete the corresponding Milestone Report and you are ready for data collection.

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION

Learners, please insert your answers directly into the expandable boxes that have been provided!

A. Learner and Specialization Information(to be completed by Learner)
Learner Name
Learner Email
Learner ID Number
Mentor Name
Mentor Email
Specialization
Specialization Chair Name
Specialization Chair Email
Committee Member #1 Name(assigned by SOE)
Committee Member #1 Email
Committee Member #2 Name(assigned by SOE)
Committee Member #2 Email
MethodologyACTION RESEARCH
PART 1 RESEARCH PLAN FORM
Section 1 Diagnose the Problem
1.1 Proposed Dissertation TitleUsually a two-part statement separated by a colon (:) and based on the research question—short and to the point.Part 1: Brief statement of what is to be improved/changed (x) in what organizational entity (y) by what intervention (z). No details such as operational definitions are needed in the Title section itself, because they belong elsewhere in the RP.Part 2: The words “An Action Research Study” (should follow the colon as the last part of EVERY title).Learners, please insert your answers here directly into the expandable boxes that have been provided. Please single space using Times Roman 11 pt throughout the form – the boxes will expand as you input text. Part 1 may not be more than 15 words in length. Total length of the Title may not exceed 19 words.
Reviewer Comments:
1.2 Topic (approximately 200-250 words)· Write no more than one or two paragraphs about the topic or issue that provides a larger context for your local problem.· Do not write about your own research setting here. That comes later in your RP.Learners, while staying within the boundaries of length, provide ALL information requested, and NOTHING that is not specifically requested. Your mentor will be checking to be sure that the parameters for this section are met.
Reviewer Comments:
1.3 Problem (approximately 200-250 words)The ‘problem’ in an action research study is an organizational situation that needs to be improved. It is not necessary that it be earth-shaking and it should not be a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) such as retention or student performance (these are too large for dissertations). The best problem is a specific organizational process that needs clarification or modification to become more efficient.· Write no more than one clear, concise paragraph that describes the problem that needs to be addressed. It should describe the opportunity for improvement at your site.The problem statement does NOT contain a solution or description of the intervention.·Learners, while staying within the boundaries of length, provide ALL information requested, and NOTHING that is not specifically requested. Your mentor will be checking to be sure that the parameters for this section are met.
Reviewer Comments:
1.4 Intervention (approximately 100 words)· Write no more than one clear concise paragraph that describes the intervention that will address the problem.· Do not give details here of HOW the intervention will be carried out. (That comes later in Part 2)Learners, while staying within the boundaries of length, provide ALL information requested, and NOTHING that is not specifically requested. Your mentor will be checking to be sure that the parameters for this section are met. NOTE: The most common flaw here is a tendency to give too many details.
Reviewer Comments:
1.5 Contributions to the Specialization (approximately 300 words)The response in this section is critical to the specialization’s approval of your topic. The implications for the specialization address the ‘so what?’ question for the study in a broader sense than how the study will help the specific institution. It’s about the specialization and not the institution.· Describe how your study will contribute to your specialization. Consider the following dimensions:a) What makes the topic of your study appropriate for your specialization?b) What implications will your study have for advancing theory and practice in your specialization?A well-written justification of how the topic fits your specialization (while staying within the boundaries of length) needs careful composition and refinement.Learners, while staying within the boundaries of length, provide ALL information requested, and NOTHING that is not specifically requested. Your mentor will be checking to be sure that the parameters for this section are met.
Reviewer Comments:

DISSERTATION LEARNERS: STOP!!!

Learners: Please forward completed Section 1 plus your references gathered so far (section 3) to your Mentor for review and for Specialization Chairs’ Approval. (Work on your full Literature Review while waiting for topic approval).

Specialization Reviewer: Please review the sections 1.1. through 1.5 (i.e., dissertation title, topic, problem, intervention, and contributions to the specialization). Please comment if not approved. Insert your electronic signature and date. Return to dissertation@capella.edu.

____YES or ____ NO

Reviewer Comments:

Specialization Topic Approval

Signature ____________________________________________ Date _________________

PART 2 RESEARCH PLAN FORM
Section 2 Methodology: Design of the Action Plan
2.1 Organizational context of your study (approximately 300 words)This section is NOT a description of the problems at the site where the study is to be done. It is rather an account of the societal forces (listed) that cause, amplify, or moderate the problem/issue as it exists at the site. Organizational context is the background of the problem, not the problem itself or the solution. Assumptions derive from the analysis of context and form the basis of the study’s intervention. To achieve a good statement, you may have to write it several times for your mentor.· Provide a brief (one to two paragraphs) synopsis of your analysis of the organizational context of the problem/issue. Include political, economic, social, and ethical systems considerations as appropriate.· State main assumptions about the problem situation and the organizational context.Provide ALL information requested, and NOTHING that is not specifically requested. Your mentor will be checking to be sure that the parameters for this section are met.
Reviewer Comments:
2.2 Existing Research. What are the key concepts and topics you reviewed to 1) better understand the problem and 2) design your intervention? (approximately 500 words)This section on existing research is NOT a literature review. Rather is it an outline and a synopsis of the themes and concepts in the scholarly literature that BECOME the literature review chapter. The themes need to be sufficiently well-explained (and, of course, cited in correct APA 6th ed. style) in a logical flow that supports the connection between the needed improvement (problem) and the intervention, as stated in the research question.· Identify the research and theories of your specialization that help explain the problem that your study will address.· Explain how systems theory, action research theory, and change theory provide a conceptual framework for your expectation that the intervention you have chosen will bring about the changes you seek.· (Attach the most current list of references with the SMR.)
Reviewer Comments:
2.3 Research Method and Research Questions (approximately 200 words)· State the research method that will be used to address the research questionsThere is only one correct way to describe the method. That is to write that “the research method to be used is action research.” Simple and complete. All others aspects (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, correlational, etc.) refer to data rather than method.· State the action research questions of the study.Similarly, there are only certain correct ways to state the research questions of an action research study:· How will [the intervention] bring about a change in [the problem] at [a specific organizational site]? The ‘How’ in this formulation refers toa) the process by which the intervention does its work (known as ‘process tracking); and is answered by telling the story of how the intervention works, andb) The ways in which the problem is changed/improved (known as the assessment of outcomes) when using qualitative data· If the outcome is assessed by a quantitative data, then the formulation “To what extent” can be used as a research question.
Reviewer Comments:
2.4 Population and Sample (approximately 200-250 words)In an AR study, the POPULATION consists of the stakeholders of the institution in which you carry out the study, and stakeholders of similar sufficiently similar institutions.The SAMPLE consists of those who will be selected to directly participate in your intervention. Select a sufficient number to support the analysis you intend to use:· For parametric statistics, sample must be > 30· Non-parametric statistics are to be used for samples of 11 to 29.· Qualitative analysis must be used for samples of 10 or fewer.· Describe the key stakeholders of your study by specifying their characteristics and the characteristics of the institution.· Describe your sample selection process, including any criteria for inclusion or exclusion from the study.· Justify your sample selection process and explain why/how the size and make-up of your sample will serve the purpose of the study.
Reviewer Comments:
2.5 Detailed Description of the Intervention and the Assessment of the Outcomes of the Study (approximately 400-450 words)This section is a synopsis of Chapter 3 in anticipation, and should be clear and full. Give a detailed (step-by-step) description of each stage of your intervention. Include:· Invitation to the participants and their preparation for the intervention;· Detailed description of each step in the intervention and the way data will be gathered to track its process.· A clear timeline for how the intervention will be arranged and implemented.· Detailed description of the way the outcomes of the intervention will be assessed.· Include a schedule of the qualitative data to be collected DURING the intervention in order to tell the story.
Reviewer Comments:
2.6 Data Collection – Phase 1 – Tracking the process of the intervention as it takes place.Again, this is the place for detail of just what will be done in COLLECTING a specific kind of data. None of this detail should have appeared in Part 1 or in any other part of the form. Be careful not to make the common mistake of combining the data collection description and the data analysis description. Special care should be taken to separate the data collection discussion from the data analysis discussion.Remember that in AR, telling the story of the intervention is just as important as is the reporting of data results. In fact, the reporting of the qualitative data taken DURING the intervention is essential to telling the story.Process tracking data will help you explain HOW the intervention brings about change.1) List and describe each form of qualitative (interviews, records) or quantitative (observations or questionnaires) data you gather DURING the intervention to track its process.2) Attach a copy of each data collection tool you plan to use.· If permission is required to use the instrument, attach a copy of documentation showing permission has been granted.· All researcher-developed data collection tools (surveys, interviews, observation schedules) must be field-tested DURING the preparation of the Research Plan. Attach the report of the field test to the RP.Learners, please note that any Quantitative test instruments or inventories used in your study MUST be existing published instruments.
Reviewer Comments:
2.7 Data Collection – Part 2 – Assessing the Outcome(s) of the InterventionData collectedAFTER the intervention can be eitherQualitative (interviews, observations) or quantitative (questionnaires or testing instruments). Again, this is the place for detail of just what will be done. None of this detail should appear in Part 1 or in any other part of the form. This section deals ONLY with data collection. Be careful not to make the common mistake of combining the data collection description and the data analysis description. Special care should be taken to separate the data collection discussion from the data analysis discussion.1) List and describe each form of qualitative (interviews, records) or quantitative (observations or questionnaires) data you gather AFTER the intervention to assess its outcomes. Attach a copy of each data collection tool you plan to use.2) If permission is required to use the instrument, attach copy of documentation showing permission has been granted.3) If using an investigator-developed survey, provide a plan for field-testing the tool. REMINDER: any Quantitative test instruments or inventories used in your study MUST be existing published instruments.
Reviewer Comments:
2.9 Data Analysis TableInstead of a long and complex narrative of how data will be analyzed, create a table of all of the data you are collecting for both (a) process tracking and (b) outcome assessment with certain specific pieces of information about EACH form of data. The rows should be the different pieces of data that will be collected. Each piece of data from the section 2.6 and 2.7 should have a row, and be listed in column 1.The columns of the table should be:Column 1 – Data being collected.Column 2 – Type of data – quantitative or qualitative.Column 3 – Form of analysis to be used.Column 4 – How the data will contribute to the study (telling the story or assessing the outcome(s)). NOTE: This should include how the data will address the research question(s).Cells formed by the columns and rows should contain descriptions of what each column calls for. Complete a cell for each type of data.
Reviewer Comments:
2.10 General Data ProceduresCertain practices regarding data are general, and are carried out for all data, regardless of type. Briefly describe general procedures for the· organization of raw data, management and processing of data,· preparation of data for analysis, and storage and· protection of data.
Reviewer Comments:
2.11 Limitations· Describe in depth any limitations of your study that are apparent at this time. Be careful not to confuse limitations with issues of scope.· Indicate areas to be improved before start of your study and areas that cannot be improved.· Give reasons for not redesigning to address any of the limitations identified.
Reviewer Comments:
2.10 Credibility, Dependability, and TransferabilityAfter you have read the action research literature on these topics (credibility, dependability, and transferability), present a strategy to ensure credibility, dependability, and transferability of your study. Recall that these are action research analogues to validity, reliability, and generalizability in inquiry research, and should be used INSTEAD of the conventional inquiry terms. (Check the text, Action Research by Stringer)This I the section, for instance, in which you should explain briefly how you have established that any data-collection tool you have constructed is VALID for the purposes you intend.
Reviewer Comments:
2.12 IRB Issues: Ethics and RiskReview the CITI Training and the IRB application that you will complete later. NOW is the time to consider issues that could delay or prevent later IRB approval.Describe any ethical and risk aspects of your study. These include:· Participant risk· Potential coercion· Conflict of interest· Confidentiality
Reviewer Comments:
Section 3 References
Provide references for all citations in correct APA 6th ed. style. Submit your reference list below.

Learner: Stop here and submit to your Mentor for final approval. Continue working on your final literature review while you wait for SMR approval.

Mentor: This form must be approved by all committee members prior to submission for SMR review. Please send completed and approved RP to dissertation@capella.edu for SMR review.

Directions for Reviewers

The reviewer determines if the SMR form is approved, disapproved, or deferred for major or minor revisions. A first submission may be returned as “not yet ready for review.” The SMR is approved if the reviewer has been able to answer “MET EXPECTATIONS” to all of the evaluation questions. A researcher has three opportunities to pass scientific merit review.

If any of the items have been checked as “BELOW EXPECTATIONS,” then the reviewer is asked to comment specifically and provide recommendations. Most of the time recommendations will lead to the reviewer requesting major or minor revisions. Minor revisions are things like needing to include more detail. Major revisions are issues where there are major design flaws, potential ethical concerns or inconsistency in terms of the research questions, the design, and the proposed data analysis. Disapproval occurs if the researcher fails to pass the SMR review on the third attempt. Disapproval could also occur earlier in the process if it is clear that the study 1.) Does not have any potential for scientific merit or 2.) the study has major ethical or methodological flaws that can not be corrected.

Please indicate your decision for this review in the correct place (First Review, Second Review, etc) and insert your electronic signature and the date below. If the SMR has a Final Status of “Approved” or “Not Approved”, please be sure to indicate this Final Scientific Merit Review status below as well.

Scientific Reviewer Evaluation

CriteriaMet ExpectationsBelow ExpectationsReviewer Comments
1Did the Specialization Chair approve the dissertation title, topic, and the basis for the project as appropriate for the specialization area?
2Has the researcher provided an adequate analysis of the organizational context and diagnosis of the problem based on evidence and data?
3Will the study improve a practice related to a specific area and therefore contribute to the larger community by meeting these three criteria?1. How is this proposed change in practice new or different from current practice?2. If your action research study is successful, how could your project impact your field of interest—“So What?”3. What are the practical implications of your study? For instance, what will be the impact of this project on your sample, your site location, or your workplace—“Who Cares?”
4Does the researcher adequately describe a theoretical and/or conceptual framework for the study? Does the researcher address systems and change theory? Does the researcher include justification of an action research or action research approach?
5Do the research questions address the research problem?
6Does the researcher describe in detail the procedure to be followed in a step-by-step way so that it is completely clear how the study will be conducted?Does the basic procedures and rationale proposed seem appropriate to answer the research questions?
7Are the data collection and analysis procedures clearly and accurately described? Can the design answer the research questions with the proposed sample, design, and analysis?
8Are any concerns about using the particular population, sample, site or how participants will be contacted, sufficiently addressed by the methodology?
9Are participant involvement, selection, and recruitment fully described and appropriate for the project?
10Are all data collection instruments, measures, scales, interview questions, or observations, appropriate for this study? Have field tests (if necessary) been described?
11Are the proposed data analyses appropriate?
12Is there alignment between the research questions, proposed methodology, types of data to be collected and proposed data analysis? Is the language used to describe the type of design and data analysis plans consistent throughout?
13Have any potentially serious ethical concerns been considered and sufficiently addressed?
14Have risks been adequately identified? Were assumptions and limitations adequately identified and explained?
Scientific Review Information (to be completed by Reviewer only)
Reviewer Name:
DateDecision
First ReviewFORMCHECKBOX Date Approved____________FORMCHECKBOX Date Deferred___________Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form)Check all that applyFORMCHECKBOX Minor Revisions FORMCHECKBOX Major RevisionsFORMCHECKBOX Not ready for reviewFORMCHECKBOX Conference call needed with mentor
Second Review(if needed)FORMCHECKBOX Date Approved___________FORMCHECKBOX Date Deferred__________Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form) Check all that applyFORMCHECKBOX Minor Revisions FORMCHECKBOX Major RevisionsFORMCHECKBOX Conference call needed with mentor
Third Review(if needed)FORMCHECKBOX Date Approved___________FORMCHECKBOX Date Deferred___________Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form)Check all that applyFORMCHECKBOX Minor Revisions FORMCHECKBOX Major RevisionsFORMCHECKBOX Conference call needed with mentor
Sent to Research Chair for Review and Consultation (if needed)Date:Research Chair Process Review Outcome (see attachments if needed)
Conference CallFORMCHECKBOX Date Approved___________FORMCHECKBOX Date Deferred_____________Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form):FORMCHECKBOX Minor Revisions FORMCHECKBOX Major Revisions
FINAL SCIENTIFIC MERIT STATUSFORMCHECKBOX ApprovedFORMCHECKBOX Not ApprovedReviewer Signature: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​_____________________________________Date Approved:________________________

This has been a Scientific Merit Review. Obtaining Scientific Merit approval does not mean you will obtain IRB approval. If a mentee does not pass the scientific merit review on the 3rd attempt, then the case will be referred to the Research Chair for review, evaluation, and intervention. Mentees, mentors and reviewers should make every attempt possible to resolve issues before the SMR is failed on a 3rd attempt.

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency