“COVID-19’s Impact on Cybercrime: Unraveling Shifts in the Cyber Landscape and Influencing Factors”

1. Undertake a critical literature review which will entail reading comprehensively
around the topic of your choice.
2. Define a problem in such a way that it is open to empirical investigation.
3. Develop a research design which will appropriately address the question posed.
4. Carry out the project with due regard to methodological, interpersonal,
administrative and ethical factors.
5. Undertake an appropriate analysis of the data.
6. Write up the project in a way which clearly communicates the background to
the question posed, the way in which the question was empirically addressed,
the extent to which the results permit an answer to it, and any future research
that the results might suggest. Projects should be typed on white paper, double-spaced, with approximately a
1” margin top, bottom and right, and with a 1.5” margin on the left (to aid the
binding process).
• Whilst there are no set rules for font size or type, as a rule of thumb 12-point
Arial or Times New Roman should probably be used. If in doubt, check with your
supervisor for further guidance.
• Page numbers are essential throughout, excluding the Appendices.
• There is a maximum word limit of 8000 words, but no minimum word length is
stipulated. The word limit does not include the Reference Section, Appendices,
or any tables, including titles, in your Results section. Exceeding the word limit
will result in a reduction of your project mark. You must also upload an electronic copy of your project having included your
SPSS data file as an appendix to blackboard. Please also make sure that you
send it to your supervisor so that your project can be checked for word length.
Please note that an identical electronic copy of your project must be uploaded to
Turnitin Checker tool by the same deadline as the paper copies so that it can be checked
for plagiarism. ABSTRACT: “Will the reader know, in essence but not in detail”:
1. What question(s) your study was attempting to address?
2. How you ‘operationalised’ it (them)? More simply, will they know what
variables, if any, you manipulated, and what variables you measured?
3. What you found?
4. What you concluded?
INTRODUCTION: “Will the reader know”:
1. What general issues your experiment or study is seeking to explore, and why?
2. What the current state of knowledge is about these general issues, based on
your literature review of current research findings?
3. How the general issues gave rise to your particular hypotheses or predictions,
and what the rationale for your study is? In order to achieve this you need to
have told the reader, in general terms, something about your
experiment/study, for example you will need to have stated what the
dependent and independent variables are.
4. What your hypotheses/predictions are?
METHOD: “Will the reader”:
1. Understand how you designed your experiment/study?
2. Understand how your ‘Method’ tests your hypotheses/prediction?
3. Have sufficient information to be able to repeat your experiment/study in exact
detail?
RESULTS: “Will the reader”:
1. Be able to look at a table of (usually) means/SD data and readily make the
comparisons required to see if your findings are in the predicted directions?
2. Be able to see whether your results are statistically significant?
NOTE: Any Figures, Graphs or Charts should be included in the RESULTS section, and
may be mentioned in the DISCUSSION. Only include such figures if they clarify results
already presented in a Table, (e.g. if you are interested in how performance varies over
time then the data in the Table would be clarified by being further represented on a
graph). Remember to give a clear title (often called a ‘legend’) to each Table or Figure.
Please always follow the APA guidelines.
DISCUSSION: “Will the reader”:
1. Have been given a brief summary of the major findings?
2. Have been taken through the implications of the major findings, i.e. the extent
to which the results strengthen or weaken the hypotheses?
3. Have their attention drawn to any major flaws in the experiment/study which
9
lead you to have reservations about your findings and their implications? (N.B.
this should not be taken as an invitation to ‘trawl’ around for trivial criticisms
of your study).
4. Have been invited to consider how your results might suggest further questions
which warrant investigation by research