A: Learning Outcomes
2.Critically assess the various potential methodological and analytical approaches that could be employed in the design of a research project.
3.Apply the methods and skills learnt to conduct an independent research project that provides evidence of an ability to critically evaluate argument/s, analyze data into information, report research findings and to synthesize evidential and theoretical concepts.
4.Provide evidence of critical reflection through reporting of relevant judgements that demonstrate an ability to articulate information, develop ideas and/or propose solutions through the application of autonomous learning.
B: Assessment Task
Report
Submit your full management research report presented according to the format laid out in the Structure & Marking Scheme overleaf.
Cpecific Criteria/Guidance
See the Structure & Marking Scheme (overleaf) for section weighting and key criteria.
All students’ research reports are marked by their supervisor and by a second marker. Where there is a disparity between these grades a third marker is sought. Following this a sample of scripts is scrutinized by the External Examiner.
D: Key Resources
The set text for this module is:
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business Students (7th ed.) London: Prentice Hall.
Alternative texts and subject specific guides are also available. They include:
Cottrell, S. (2014). Dissertations and project reports: A step by step guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davies, M. B., & Hughes, N. (2014). Doing a successful research project: Using qualitative or quantitative methods (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fisher, C., & Buglear, J. (2010). Researching and writing a dissertation: An essential guide for business students (3rd ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
McMillan, K., & Weyers, J. (2014). How to complete a successful research project. New York;Harlow, England;: Pearson.
Each of the textbooks listed other than Cottrell is available as an e-book through the library as well as in hard copy. The Cottrell text is currently available new at £11.99 (correct at 6th September 2019).
| Criteria | 90-100% | 80-90% | 70-79% | 60-69% | 50-59% | 40-49% | 30-39% | 20-29% | 10-19%
|
0-9% |
| Methodology (15%)
Explanation & justification for:
Methodological paradigm & research design
Research population & sampling method
Research methods and means of data analysis
|
Research paradigm explained & justified
Research approach identified & justified
Research method appropriate, thorough & imaginative
Sample size significant & appropriate |
Research paradigm explained & justified
Research approach identified & justified
Research method appropriate, thorough & imaginative
Sample size significant & appropriate |
Research paradigm explained & justified
Research approach identified & justified
Research method appropriate & thorough
Sample strong |
Research paradigm explained
Research approach identified
Research method identified but not justified
Sample adequate but limited in size or quality |
Research paradigm attempted but only partly grasped
Research approach identified
Research method identified but not justified
Sample limited |
Research paradigm not addressed or not understood
Research approach not justified
Research method very general
Sample inadequate |
Research paradigm not addressed
Research approach not explained
Research method very general
Sample inadequate |
Research paradigm not addressed
Research approach not explained
Research method identified only in part
Sampling technique not explained |
Research paradigm not addressed
Research approach not explained
Research method unclear
Sampling technique not explained |
Research paradigm not addressed
Research approach not explained
Research method missing
Sampling technique not explained |
| Presentation of findings (15%)
Description of critical findings
Use of appropriate forms of analysis (quantitative / qualitative)
Clear data presentation (tables / diagrams)
|
Findings clearly & imaginatively presented.
Diagrams & tables aid understanding.
Commentary complements data to ensure awareness of key points. |
Findings clearly & imaginatively presented.
Diagrams & tables aid understanding.
Commentary complements data to ensure awareness of key points. |
Findings clearly & imaginatively presented.
Diagrams & tables aid understanding.
Commentary complements data. |
Findings clearly presented.
Diagrams & tables aid understanding.
Commentary useful but may only draw attention to obvious points. |
Findings clearly presented.
Diagrams & tables aid understanding but may be unnecessary at times.
Commentary useful but may only draw attention to obvious points.
|
Insufficient thought given to presentation of findings.
Most points illustrated by pie or bar charts even if not needed.
Over reliance on percentages |
Commentary largely absent and findings presented mainly in pie or bar charts.
|
Commentary largely absent and findings presented mainly in pie or bar charts.
May be errors in these. |
Findings very limited | Findings absent |
| Criteria | 90-100% | 80-90% | 70-79% | 60-69% | 50-59% | 40-49% | 30-39% | 20-29% | 10-19%
|
0-9% |
| Analysis & interpretation of findings (20%)
Explanation of data / analysis presented
Interpretation of data in relation to findings and the literature / concepts / theory (variance and concurrence)
|
Clear connection made between different questions or elements of original research.
Exceptional connections made with existing research to demonstrate how findings add value. |
Clear connection made between different questions or elements of original research.
Clear connections made with existing research to demonstrate how findings add value. |
Clear connection made between different questions or elements of original research.
Connections made with existing research to demonstrate variance & concurrence. |
Clear connection made between different questions or elements of original research.
Reference to existing research but connections to it may not be clear. |
Some connection made between different questions or elements of original research.
Reference to existing research on subject limited or missing. |
Analysis adds little to the research findings.
Reference to existing research on subject limited or missing. |
Analysis adds little to the research findings.
Reference to existing research on subject limited or missing. |
Analysis so perfunctory as to have little or no value. | Barely any analysis | No analysis |
| Conclusions (10%)
Appropriate conclusions
Reviews limitations
Considers potential improvement and opportunities for further research
Recommendations (if/where applicable) |
Provides considered & convincing answers to how far each aim has been realised & the research question answered.
Provides highly informed critical reflection on the research process.
Identifies areas for further or connected research. |
Provides considered & convincing answers to how far each aim has been realised & the research question answered.
Provides informed critical reflection on the research process.
Identifies opportunities for further or connected research.
|
Provides considered answers to how far each aim has been realised & the research question answered.
Critically reflects on the research process.
Identifies opportunities for further research. |
Addresses how far the research question has been answered.
Acknowledges limitations in the research process.
Identifies opportunities for further research. |
Typically omits one of:
how far the research question has been answered;
limitations in the research process;
opportunities for further research. |
A thin conclusion that may omit limitations in the research process and opportunities for further research | Inadequate conclusion that fails to add value to the report by answering the question or setting the scene for future research | Conclusion is not connected to the research question | No meaningful conclusion | No conclusion |
| Criteria | 90-100% | 80-90% | 70-79% | 60-69% | 50-59% | 40-49% | 30-39% | 20-29% | 10-19%
|
0-9% |
| Written Expression (5%)
Clear, coherent writing style.
Competence in grammar, spelling, syntax and proof-reading.
|
Extremely well-written, with accuracy and flair; sophisticated, fluent and persuasive expression of ideas
Near perfect spelling, punctuation and flowing syntax |
Very well-written, with accuracy and flair; sophisticated, fluent and persuasive expression of ideas
Near perfect spelling, punctuation and flowing syntax |
Well expressed, fluent, sophisticated and confident expression; highly effective vocabulary and clear style
Near perfect spelling, punctuation and syntax |
Clear, fluent, confident expression; appropriate vocabulary and style
High standard of accuracy in spelling, punctuation and syntax |
Clearly written, coherent expression;
reasonable range of vocabulary and adequate style
Overall competence in spelling, punctuation and syntax, although there may be some errors
|
Expression and style reasonably clear but lack sophistication. Limited vocabulary. Limited or no proof reading
Inaccuracies in spelling, punctuation and syntax do not usually interfere with meaning but are too frequent and indicative of a careless approach |
Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning; inaccurate or unprofessional terminology.
Many errors in spelling, punctuation and syntax – often repeated. No evidence of proof-reading |
Lack of clarity, very poor expression; style inappropriate, terminology; inadequate and inappropriate vocabulary
Many serious errors of spelling, punctuation and syntax that interfere with meaning and clarity of expression |
Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work extremely unclear
Many serious errors of even basic spelling, punctuation and syntax that undermine or block clarity of meaning and discussion |
Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work completely unclear
Many serious errors of even basic spelling, punctuation and syntax that undermine or block clarity of meaning and discussion |
| Referencing (5%)
Accuracy in referencing according to the APA system.
Number of references and balance between types of source material.
Ability to paraphrase rather than use direct quotations |
All sources acknowledged and meticulously listed/cited. A comprehensive list of references.
Reference sources integrated into argument with direct quotes used for impact only. |
All sources acknowledged and meticulously listed/cited. A very thorough list of references.
Reference sources integrated into argument with direct quotes used for impact only. |
All sources acknowledged and correctly listed/cited.
Reference sources integrated into argument with direct quotes used sparingly |
Sources mainly acknowledged and mostly accurately listed/cited.
Appropriate number and balance of listed references (i.e. books, journals and web articles). Some direct quotes could have been worked in more effectively |
Sources usually, but not always, acknowledged; referencing generally accurate, but with too many inaccuracies and errors.
Modest number of listed references which lacks balance between sources. Inclined to rely too much at time on direct quotations. |
Sources not always acknowledged; references too often incorrectly cited/listed. Over-reliance on using direct quotations and website URLs.
Low number of listed references.
Paraphrasing weak and inaccurate.
Over-reliance on web sources. |
Referencing incomplete, or inaccurate.
Little or no paraphrasing with excessive use of direct quotations. Deliberate or unintentional plagiarism. Little attempt to apply APA system. Large reliance on web sources. |
Referencing highly inaccurate or absent.
Paraphrasing non-existent. . |
No meaningful attempt at referencing.
No attempt to use or apply APA system |
No attempt at referencing.
. |
