Faculty of Business & Management

Assessment Brief 2020/21

A: Assessment Details
Module Title Business Research Methods
Module Code BU7002
Module Leader Prof Kelvin Leong
Component Number 2 (of 2)
Assessment Type, Word Count & Weighting Research Project Proposal, 3000 words, 75% weighting
Submission Deadline 5 Aug 2021, (12:00 noon)
Submission Instructions Electronic via Turnitin link on module website
Feedback Return Date 5 Sept 2021, (17:00)

B: Learning Outcomes
1. To understand the nature of management knowledge and research through an appreciation of various
research philosophical orientations
2. To identify and critically evaluate a range of research strategies and research designs
3. To understand and evaluate quantitative management research designs and methods
4. To understand and evaluate effective qualitative research designs and methods in management
5. To act ethically in the conduct of management research and critically evaluate the ethical foundations of
established research

C: Assessment Task
Assessment 2: (3,000 words; 75% weighting) a research proposal for the management research project. [LO 1-5]

You are to identify a research topic and a related research title and research question and prepare a research
proposal document which designs and prepares a research project that will respond to the title and question and
other required sections of a research proposal.

Your research topic must be selected from your MSc pathway.

D: Specific Criteria/Guidance
Research Proposal

The proposal requires you to identify your research question and aims. You are also required to demonstrate
initial engagement with the relevant existing literature and introduce your proposed methodology and plan of
work.

Your research aims/question should be well focused and well-scoped

The literature review is not a list of article summaries but should be structured under themes and headings. It
serves a number of purposes, including:
• To chart what is already known about the topic: signalling that you have positioned your work in a broad body
of literature and are aware of the main works and ideas of relevance to your research
• To define the research problem that underpins your research question
• To illustrate some of the different theoretical and methodological approaches to your topic
• To help you develop a framework for your analysis
Page 1 of 6
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2020/21

• To help you interpret your findings

The methodology should be outlined and justified.

The plan of work should be presented as a Gantt Chart or Spreadsheet with accompanying notes if necessary.

* Ethical Approval
Ethics form needs to be completed when in the module BU7001.

Obtaining ethical approval requires you to demonstrate that you have considered and assessed the ethical risks
associated with your project and have a plan in place to negate these or reduce them to an acceptable level.

You should use the template that is available on the module website. You should also consult the notes of guidance
for completing the form.

NB. This form comprises an element of the marks awarded for this assignment.

Guidance on how to go about preparing your proposal is included on the module website. You are also encouraged
to discuss both your completed proposal and your ethics form with your supervisor prior to submission.

The assessment criteria for this assignment is provided on the marking scheme / rubric below.

Please be noted that the weightings does not equate to the word count.

E: Key Resources

The set text for this module is:

 Bryman, A. and E. Bell (Latest Ed) Business Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
 Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln Eds. (latest Ed) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage.
 Saunders M., P. Lewis and A. Thornhill (Latest Ed) Research Methods For Business Students, Prentice Hall /
Pearson.
 Blaxter, L., C. Hughes and M. Tight (2011) How to Research, 4th edition, Open University Press
 Bell, J. (2011) Doing Your Research Project, 5th edition, Open University Press
 Costley, C., Elliott, G. and Gibbs, P. (2010) Doing Work Based Research: approaches to inquiry for insider-
researchers, Sage
 Denscombe, M. (2011) The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research projects, 4th edition,
Open University Press
 Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P.R. (2008) Management Research, 3rd edition, Sage
 Fisher, C. (2010) Researching and Writing a Dissertation: an essential guide for business students, 3rd
edition, FT Prentice Hall
 Gill, J. & Johnson, P. (2010) Research Methods for Managers, 4th edition, Sage
 Hart, C. (2005) Doing Your Masters Dissertation, Sage
 Lee, N. and Lings, I. (2008) Doing Business Research: a guide to theory and practice, Sage
 Oliver, P. (2010) The Student's Guide to Research Ethics, 2nd edition, Open University Press
 Punch, K.F. (2005) Introduction to Social Research: quantitative and qualitative approaches, 2nd edition,
Sage

Page 2 of 6
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2020/21

 Robson,C. (2002) 2nd Ed Real World Research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-
researchers, Oxford
 Savin-Baden, M. and Howell Major, C. (eds.) (2010) New Approaches to Qualitative Research, Routledge
 Silverman, D. Ed. (2010) Doing Qualitative Research: theory, method and practice, 3rd edition, Sage.

F: Submission Guidance
 Students should submit work before 12 noon on the deadline date via the appropriate ‘Turnitin
submission’ link on the Moodle module page. Please check your email confirmation to ensure you have
submitted to the correct place.

 You must submit assessments in Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint or PDF format.

 The file must be no larger than 40MB.

 Your writing is expected to conform to Standard English in terms of spelling, syntax and grammar.
 You must include your Assessment Number (J Number) in the header or footer.
 Include your word count at the end of the assignment or the front cover.
 Set up your page for A4 paper in portrait style.
 The font size must be a minimum of point 12 Calibri (or equivalent) for the body of the assessment.
 Line spacing in the body of the assessment must be 1.5 lines.
 Number the pages consecutively.
 You must submit your work with the following details written on the first page:
o Title of your work
o Module title and code
o Module Leader and Seminar Tutor (if relevant)
o Number of words
o Your student assessment number (J Number)

Student work that does not have this information on will not be identifiable after marking has taken place
and risks being recorded as a non-submission.

G: Academic Integrity and Penalties

Page 3 of 6
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2020/21

It is your responsibility to ensure that you are familiar with all of the information contained in this brief as failure to
do this may impact on your achievement.

Please refer to the various Assessment Guidance below for detailed information on:

Academic Integrity
Excess Word Count Penalties (found within 5C of the assessment manual)
APA Reference Guide
University Generic Marking Criteria (Found within 5D of the handbook)
Late Work Penalties: Unless you have an extension, any work submitted past the assessment deadline will be
subject to a penalty as per university regulations (5 marks per day deduction).

F: Rubrics and Criteria

Please see attached rubric for marking criteria.

BU7002 A2 - Structure & Marking Scheme (Rubric)

Criteria 90-100% 80-90% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39%

Title & Aims Crisp succinct Crisp succinct A well A good working Title largely Title may not Title fails
(20%) title accurately title accurately expressed title title that could be captures the focus adequately adequately to
summarises the summarises the that more succinct of the project. articulate the capture the
Use of essence of the essence of the incorporates proposed essence of the
appropriate research focus. research focus. all key Thorough aims Appreciation research; proposed
title dimensions. that effectively shown of the use language may research; may
Excellent aims Convincing aims break the topic / of aims to break be clumsy. contain
Relevance of that provide a that provide a Convincing question into its the topic into ambiguities.
aims to title very clear and very clear and aims. component parts. component parts. Limited use of
logical logical However, there aims to break Little use of
Feasibility of framework for framework for Feasible topic. Largely feasible may be gaps or the topic into aims to break
topic delivery of the delivery of the topic with some ambiguities. component the topic into
main project. main project. minor clarifications parts. component
required. Areas of plan parts.
Topic feasible & Entirely feasible need revision for Plan needs
original topic feasibility. substantial Plan needs
revision. substantial
revision.

Page 4 of 6
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2020/21

Literature Exceptional Comprehensive Good critical Good analysis of Some good Basic analysis of Inadequate
Review (30%) critical analysis critical analysis analysis of relevant literature analysis of some relevant analysis.
of relevant of relevant relevant overall; but may relevant literature; literature but Largely
Depth and literature literature. literature. lack criticism or but weaknesses without descriptive and
breadth & showing Some material comprehensive- and/or gaps. underlying logic provides little
relevance of substantial Authoritative may be dated. ness. and structure. insight into the
reading and insight. argument with a Reasonable context for the
related clear logical Excellent Logically structure; logical Research gap research focus.
analysis Authoritative progression organisation of structured; well- flow. Research identified but
argument with a leading to a ideas; cogent reasoned gap identified but may be too Poorly
Quality of the clear logical highly original & development discussion. may be too general or too structured.
structure of progression valid research of argument. Research will general or too inconsequential.
the analysis in leading to a idea Research will contribute to filling inconsequential. Little or no
determining highly original & contribute to an identifiable Paraphrasing paraphrasing
the research valid research filling an research gap weak and with excessive
problem idea identifiable inaccurate. reliance on
research gap. direct
quotations.

Research
problem may not
be identified

Criteria 90-100% 80-90% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39%

Methodology Exceptional Advanced Confident Understanding of Limited apparent Explanation of Research

(20%) understanding understanding of understanding research paradigm understanding of research paradigm barely
and clear research of research and rationale for research paradigm paradigm addressed.
Rationale and expression of paradigm. paradigm. selecting it. but reasonable attempted but
research research Rationale for Rationale for justification. little evidence of Expression of
paradigm. philosophy. selecting it & selecting it & Appropriate understanding. ideas insufficient
implications of it implications of methods Research to convey clear
Research An erudite and, clearly it clearly explained & methods Expression and meaning.
population succinct conveyed. conveyed. justified. explained but style reasonably
and sampling justification of limited justification clear but lack Research
method. chosen methods A well-argued Appropriate Generally sophistication. methods listed
that are entirely justification of methods competent Basically sound but hardly or
Research apt. Rationale chosen methods explained. approach to data approach to data Research ineptly
specific for rejected that are entirely Justification analysis but may analysis but methods described.
methods and methods clearly apt. Rejected includes not be fully aligned somewhat lacking described but
justification. explained. methods rejected with research in depth and not justified. Data analysis
identified. methods. topic. crispness. Some additional unlikely to
Methods of Means of data methods would provide useful
data analysis. analysis will Excellent Competent Generally good Basic analysis of have been insight into the
maximise insight approach to approach to consideration of ethical issues & appropriate. research topic
Ethical issues into research data analysis data analysis. ethical issues & research
and research topic. that aligns with research standards. Little Data analysis Ethics form not
standards research topic. Competent standards but may depth of superficial. acceptably
Clear, mature analysis of lack depth in evaluation. completed.
and deep insight Excellent ethical issues places. Superficial
into ethical consideration & research consideration of
considerations and discussion standards. ethical issues &
and research of ethical issues research
standards. & research standards.
standards.
Plan of Work Sharp focused A very clear A complete & A competent A basic Some key Insufficient key
(15%) understanding. summary of all appropriate summary of key identification of elements elements
key elements structure that elements, though important key identified. Many identified to
Understandin Outstanding, that is well will facilitate one or two may be elements, though overlooked, enable plan to
g of key structure with structured and fit implementatio overlooked. several may be be adequately
deliverables effective use of for purpose. n overlooked. Basic structure implemented.
and elements. written & graphic A good structure lacking. Confused
components. Deliverable with A deliverable overall. There A basic structure Sequencing of understanding of
Quality of plan a clear plan that may be elements that would benefit components not these.
structure and Entirely sequencing of covers all the that are somewhat from additional logical. Key
organisation. deliverable. the key stages key vague or components. Not components No discernible
Provides a of the project practicalities, undeveloped. particularly logical may be missing. structure. Just a
Practicality of detailed ‘route though some in terms of layout list of ‘to do’
plan. map’ to final detail could be and sequencing. items that is
submission. amplified. probably not
complete.

Page 5 of 6
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2020/21

Criteria 90-100% 80-90% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39%

Written Exceptional Very well- Well Clear, fluent, Clearly written, Expression and Expression of
Expression clarity and written, with expressed, confident coherent style reasonably ideas insufficient
(10%) coherence; accuracy, flair fluent, expression; expression; clear but lack to convey clear
highly and persuasive sophisticated appropriate reasonable range sophistication. meaning;
Written sophisticated expression of and confident vocabulary and of vocabulary and Limited inaccurate or
expression, expression. ideas expression; style adequate style vocabulary. unprofessional
vocabulary highly effective Limited or no terminology. No
and style Near perfect Near perfect vocabulary High standard of Overall proof reading evidence of
spelling, spelling, and clear style accuracy in competence in proof reading
Grammar, punctuation and punctuation and spelling, spelling, Inaccuracies in
spelling, elegant syntax. flowing syntax Near perfect punctuation and punctuation and spelling, Many errors in
punctuation spelling, syntax syntax, although punctuation and spelling,
and syntax punctuation there may be syntax are too punctuation and
and syntax some errors frequent and syntax – often
indicative of a repeated. No
careless evidence of
approach and proof-reading.
poor proof-
reading.

Referencing All sources All sources All sources Sources mainly Sources usually, Sources not Referencing
(5%) acknowledged. acknowledged & acknowledged acknowledged and but not always, always incomplete,
Consistently, meticulously and correctly mostly accurately acknowledged; acknowledged; inappropriate or
Accurate and appropriately, listed/cited. A listed/cited. listed/cited. referencing references too inaccurate.
appropriate authoritatively comprehensive generally often incorrectly
application of and meticulously list of accurate, but with cited/listed. <10 listed items,
the APA too many Over-reliance on which may lack
listed/cited. An references.
referencing inaccuracies and using direct relevance.
outstanding list
system for errors quotations and
listing and of references website URLs.
that is Little attempt to
citing sources Reference list apply APA
authoritative, lacks source A shallow list of
current and system. Almost
balance. items (<10),
original. complete
which may lack
Inclined to rely too source balance reliance on web
much on direct sources.
quotations.
.
Tendency to over-
use web sources

Page 6 of 6