Assessments Handbook [Research Project (Marketing)] [N1628]

联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981

Assessments Handbook
[Research Project (Marketing)]
[N1628]
[UG/Year 3]
2025 – 2026
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX BUSINESS SCHOOL
2
Module Assessments Breakdown
● This module requires independent work from the study in designing research questions and
research methodology, collecting and analysing data and presenting research in a variety of
format.
● Students get one-to-one support from the supervisor in their research journey.
Mode Brief Description Length
Research Plan Research Plan/Proposal 2000 words (+/- 10%)
Dissertation Dissertation 7500 words (+/- 10%)
In the following, each of these assessments is explained in detail.
Assessments 1 – Research Plan/Proposal
Preparation
Word count: 2000 words (+/- 10%).
The word count excludes bibliography and tables and figures.
Use Harvard style referencing
Submission
● E-submissions of a word document.
Marking Criteria
● Marks within the ranges set out below are used to differentiate work within the particular
criteria indicated for the range of marks.
● The criteria stated are indicative, and good work relative to one aspect of a criterion may
compensate for less good work relative to another aspect of that criterion.
Dimension
(Weight %)
Mark
Band
Mark Band Descriptor
Introduction/
Background
(20%)
17-20 Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with areas of specialisation is depth
and awareness of provisional nature of knowledge, clearly links to the research
problem and research gap
14-16 Reasonable knowledge of topic and an awareness of a variety of
ideas/contexts/frame-works
11-13 Has given a factual and/or conceptual knowledge base and appropriate
terminology
8-10 Evidence of limited knowledge of topic and some use of appropriate terminology
0- 7 Lacks evidence of knowledge relevant to the topic and/or significantly misuses
terminology
Research
Question
(20%)
17-20 Very clear and precise question or topic, highly relevant to understanding of
management, title clear and fully explanatory of research question, topic
interesting and likely to be manageable within constraints of time.
14-16 Clear and well-stated research question or topic, interesting and relevant for
understanding of management, adequately described by title.
11-13 Research question stated imprecisely, relevance to management not clear or not
fully justified, title imprecise, topic may be too basic or too ambitious.
8-10 Research question difficult to identify, little relevance to management, title does
not describe research adequately, topic likely to be too basic or too ambitious.
3
0- 7 No obvious research question or topic, not relevant to management, title
confusing, topic clearly too basic or too ambitious.
Theory and
Literature
(20%)
17-20 Theory clearly stated and fully relevant to research question. Literature review
clearly structured and shows full awareness of prior research and relevant
materials. Citations and references consistently in proper form.
14-16 Theory clearly stated and relevant to research question. Literature review
wellstructured and shows awareness of prior research and relevant materials,
though some less relevant material may be referred to. Citations and references
almost all in proper form.
11-13 Theory stated imprecisely, relevance to research question not clear. Literature
review somewhat unstructured, prior research covered only at basic level, some
irrelevant material included. Some inaccuracies in citation and referencing.
8-10 Little relevant theoretical basis. Unstructured literature review with significant
gaps. Citation and referencing haphazard, with some citations unreferenced.
0- 7 No theoretical basis (and no explanation for omission). Literature coverage very
rudimentary, with clear gaps. Citation and referencing unsystematic or omitted.
Research
Method
(20%)
17-20 Research method fully appropriate to research question and clearly explained.
14-16 Research method appropriate (though not necessarily best method) and clearly
explained.
11-13 Research method relevant for research question though explanation unclear.
8-10 Research method possibly relevant for research question, explanation and
justification vague.
0- 7 Research method inappropriate for research question, explanation missing or
confusing.
Overall
Assessment
(20%)
17-20 Very promising research proposal, very well structured, clearly written and
presented in professional manner, giving a coherent and integrated impression of
planned research.
14-16 Very good research proposal, well-structured and presented – proposal may not be
fully integrated.
11-13 Satisfactory research proposal – some elements may be vague, inconsistent and/or
impractical.
8-10 Acceptable proposal overall, though with significant gaps and/or issues of
practicality.
0- 7 Unacceptable proposal. There are crucial omissions and/or confusions, making
the proposed research unlikely to be feasible.
Interpreting Marks
You can interpret your mark using this table.
Mark Classification Description
85-100 Exceptional 1st An exceptional research proposal, with clarified research aim and
objectives (questions), showing comprehensive knowledge of the
topic and research gap, engages with relevant theory and justifies the
chosen research methodology. The proposal should be superbly
organised and presented and lucidly written
70-84 Outstanding 1st An outstanding research proposal with clarified research aims,
showing a thorough understanding of the topic, showing
comprehensive knowledge of the topic and research gap, engages with
relevant theory, and justifies the chosen research methodology. The
report should display excellent organisational and presentational skills.
4
60-69 2.1 A proposal showing a clear understanding of the research topic.
Research aim and objectives (questions) are clarified and specified.
There is also some evidence of background research, but limited
engagement with theories. Research methodology is explained but
with limited justification. The report should be organised and written
to a reasonable standard.
50-59 2.2 A reasonably written proposal, demonstrating some familiarity with
the research topic. Research aim is provided but objectives are
broad and lack specificity. Identifies theories but doesn’t relate the
theories with the research topic. Lacks detail explanation and
justification of the research methodology. The presentation and
organization of the report should be reasonably clear. There may be
some signs of weakness, but overall the grasp of the topic should be
sound.
40-49 3rd A proposal showing basic understanding of the topic, has identified
research aim, but has failed to narrow down or provide any
objectives (questions), limited discussion of the literature, theoretical
framework and research methodology. Structure is not clear and there
may well be signs of confusion about more complex material.
30-39 Marginal Fail A proposal showing some work towards understanding the research topic,
but significant issues are likely to be neglected. There may be significant
errors or misconceptions in the project.
20-29 Absolute Fail A proposal with some correct and relevant material, but most issues are
neglected or are covered incorrectly. There should be some signs of
appreciation of the project requirements.
10-19 Complete Fail Very little or nothing that is correct and relevant and there is no real
appreciation of the project requirements.
Assessments 2 – Dissertation
Preparation
Feedback from the dissertation poster is feed forwarded to the dissertation.
Word count: 7500 (+/- 10%)
The word count excludes bibliography and tables and figures.
Use Harvard style referencing
Submission
● E-submission of word document
Indicative Marking Criteria
● Here are the indicative detailed marking criteria.
Dimension Weight
(%)
Mark
Band
Descriptor
Title

2

2 Very informative, representative, and precise title.
1 Good, rather informative title.
0 Title should be more informative and representative of this research project.
Abstract

2

2 Excellent abstract summarizing key aspects of this research project.
1 Good abstract summarizing key aspects of this research project.
0 No research abstract.
Motivation –
Real world
3

3 Strong rationale for research.
2 Good rationale for research.
5
problem

1 Clear rationale for research.
0 Weak rationale for research.
Motivation –
Academic Gap
Spotting
3

3 Deep insight into discipline.
2 Strong grasp of research at forefront of discipline; original critique and
application of key concepts.
1 Limited insight into discipline.
0 No insight into discipline.
Research
Question

3

3 Excellent research question/objective framing and presentation.
2 Good research question/objective framing and presentation, although further
adjustments could be made.
1 Limited research question/objective framing and presentation, and many
further adjustments could be made.
0 No clear presentation of research question/objective.
Literature
review coverage

6

6 Thorough review of research literature.
4 Good evidence of study of research literature.
2 Limited evidence of study of literature.
1 Evidence of study of research literature has to be inferred.
Literature
review critical
analysis and
synthesis

8

8 Excellent synthesis of extant literature (e.g., in a concept-centric table or a
research framework).
4 Good synthesis of extant literature (e.g., in a concept-centric table or a
research framework).
3 Some limited synthesis of extant literature (e.g., in a concept-centric table or
a research framework).
1 Weak or inappropriate synthesis of extant literature (e.g., in a conceptcentric
table or a research framework).
Conceptual
Clarity

5

5 Key concepts are carefully reviewed and conceptualized.
3 Key concepts are reviewed and conceptualized although further conceptual
clarifications/better definitions are required.
2 Key concepts needed to be reviewed and conceptualized better, and further
conceptual clarifications/better definitions are required.
1 Key concepts are not adequately reviewed and conceptualized, and most
required conceptual clarifications/definitions are lacking.
0 No discussion of key concepts.
Arguments and
Justifications

5

5 Much consideration given to presentation and ordering of argument.
4 Good consideration given to presentation and ordering of argument.
3 Some consideration given to presentation and ordering of argument.
2 Limited consideration given to presentation and ordering of argument.
1 Little consideration given to presentation and ordering of argument.
Justification of
research
methods choices
4 4 Strong rationale for methodology.
3 Good rationale for methodology.
2 Clear rationale for methodology.
1 Weak rationale for methodology.
0 No rationale for methodology.
Research
design fit for
purpose
3 3 Research design set in coherent and original methodological framework.
2 Research design is supported by limited theoretical framework.
1 Inadequate or inappropriate research methods.
Attention to
Research
Validity
4 4 Demonstrates careful attention to research validity.
3 Good attention to research validity.
2 Limited attention to research validity.
1 Inadequate attention to research validity.
0 No attention to research validity.
6
Awareness of
ethical
implications
1

1 Demonstrates an awareness of the ethical implications of this research.
0 Indicates no or a limited awareness of ethical implications of this research.
Data Collection
Efforts
4 4 Original and rigorous design and methods of data collection.
3 Rigorous design and methods of data collection.
2 Good design and methods of data collection.
1 Poor design and methods of data collection.
0 Lacks a clear research design and methods of data collection.
Engagement
with data

4

4 Excellent engagement with primary and/or secondary sources.
3 Very good engagement with primary and/or secondary sources.
2 Good engagement with primary and/or secondary sources.
1 Limited engagement with primary and/or secondary sources.
0 No reasonable engagement with primary and/or secondary sources.
Data Analysis
Approach

4

4 Excellent choice, justification, and implementation of the data analysis
approach.
3 Good choice, justification, and implementation of the data analysis
approach.
2 Limited evidence of choice, justification, and implementation of the data
analysis approach.
1 Inadequate evidence of choice, justification, and implementation of the data
analysis approach.
0 Poor choice, justification, and implementation of the data analysis approach.
Data Analysis
Rigor

5

5 Comprehensive, thorough and appropriate data analysis and interpretation.
4 Good data analysis and interpretation.
3 Incomplete data analysis and interpretation.
2 Inadequate or inappropriate data analysis.
1 Little evidence of data analysis.
Presentation of
Findings

4

4 Clear and structure presentation of findings.
3 Good attempt at presenting the findings.
2 Rather unclear and inadequate presentation of findings.
1 Inadequate or inappropriate presentation of findings.
0 No clear presentation of findings.
Discussing
findings against
extant literature

5

5 Excellent discussion of research findings against extant literature.
4 Good discussion of research findings against extant literature.
3 Incomplete discussion of research findings against extant literature.
2 Limited discussion of research findings against extant literature.
1 Weak discussion of research findings against extant literature.
0 No discussion of research findings against extant literature.
Discussing the
implications for
future research
2

2 Good discussion of the implications for future research.
1 Limited discussion of the implications for future research.
0 No discussion of the implications for future research.
Discussing the
implications for
practice
2

2 Excellent discussion of the implications for practice.
1 Limited discussion of the implications for practice.
0 No discussion of the implications for practice.
Reflecting on
the limitations
of the study
2

2 Includes critical reflections on the limitations of the study.
1 Weak reflections on the limitations of the study.
0 No reflections on the limitations of the study.
Contributions

3

3 Informative conclusions highlighting key contributions of this research.
2 Good conclusions highlighting key contributions of this research.
1 Limited conclusions to highlight key contributions of this research.
7
0 No clear conclusion that highlights key contributions of this research.
References and
citation style
1

1 Reasonable attention to referencing and citation style.
0 Limited attention to referencing and citation style.
Quality of
academic
writing

5

5 Rigorous and original study; coherent and creative structure; extremely high
standard of style and presentation.
4 Good quality of writing overall.
3 Acceptable quality of academic writing overall, although much improvement
could be made.
1 Average quality of writing and clarity of presentation.
0 Poor quality of academic writing with some confusing /inadequate
presentation, irrelevant arguments; disregard of style and standards of
writing.
Structure of
chapters and
sub-chapters
2

2 Reasonable dissertation structure in terms of chapters and sub-chapters.
1 The dissertation structure in terms of chapters and sub-chapters needs
improvements.
Appendices

1

1 Comprehensive appendices.
0 More supporting evidence could be included in the appendices.
Overall
engagement
with the
dissertation

3

3 Highly reflective approach to research process; independent and exercised
initiative and personal responsibility; advanced problem-solving skills
evident.
2 Reflective approach to research process; independent and exercised initiative
and personal responsibility; problem solving skills evident.
1 Some evidence of reflective approach to research process; limited initiative
and personal responsibility.
0 Little evidence of reflective approach to research process; no initiative and
personal responsibility shown.
Overall

4

4 Overall, this is an extremely well planned and executed research project.
3 Overall, this is a well planned and executed research project.
2 Overall, this shows a good planning and execution of research project.
1 Overall, this demonstrates a marginally acceptable planning and execution of
research project.
0 Overall, this dissertation demonstrates a poor planning and execution of
research project.
8
Interpreting Marks
You can interpret the overall mark using this table.
Class Mark (%) Mark Descriptor
1st 100 Thesis is of sufficient quality to submit for publication to an international
peer-reviewed journal.
95 Thesis is close to a publishable standard, containing a succinct survey of the
most important primary literature using variety of academic readings, and
an accurate and logical account and justification of the methods used. It
presents the results in a publishable format, and knowledgeably applies any
necessary qualitative and quantitative tools and techniques. Discussion of
results demonstrates high levels of rigour and critical ability in the context of
the relevant literature. Thesis demonstrates an appreciation the limitations of
the methodologies or other procedures, shows attention to detail (in references,
figures, etc.), and shows clear and possibly novel insight into the subject.
90
85 Excellent thesis, meeting all of the criteria for a mark of 68 and most but not all
of the criteria for a mark of 90+. 80
76 Excellent thesis, meeting all the criteria for a mark of 68 and one or a few of the
criteria for a mark of 90+. 72
2:1 68 Very good, well-structured thesis written concisely in good academic style and
showing the following features:
(i) an ability to carry out independent lines of enquiry and to conduct
perceptive and scholarly research
(ii) a very good understanding of the study design and the methods used to
generate and analyse the data;
(iii) appropriate – if not high-level – analyses;
(iv) clear presentation of results;
(v) sound knowledge of how the study fits in to the relevant literature; (vi)
some critical interpretation of the results and the study overall.
65
62
2:2 58 Good thesis showing the following features: (i) an ability to follow
experimental procedures; (ii) basic understanding of the relevant concepts
and methods; (iii) mostly logical structure and scientific style; (iv) reasonable
interpretation of the data or information collected; and (iv) a reasonable
attempt to relate the results to the contemporary literature. N.B. Theses that
are too long, poorly written, and/or that show poor use of references are unlikely
to be marked above a 2B.
55
52
3rd 48 Acceptable thesis showing the following features: (i) an ability to follow some
experimental procedures; (ii) a weak grasp of most of the relevant concepts
and methods; (iii) need for close guidance in design and interpretation; and
(iv) at best limited relation of the results to the relevant literature. Research
projects in this bracket are likely to be marred by significant errors, important
omissions, brevity and/or a failure to interpret the data critically.
45
42
Fail 38 Poor thesis showing the following features: (i) understanding of less than half
of the theoretical basis of the project; (ii) evidence of widespread difficulty
following procedures to generate and analyse data; (iii) need for complete
instruction in design and interpretation; (iv) does not relate the outcome of
the experimental work to the literature.
35
30
25 Thesis contains more than a few relevant sentences but shows very little
understanding of the background to the project, the project design, or the
methods used to generate or analyse the data. Students in this bracket are unlikely
to have been able to carry out even basic procedures, despite proper instruction.
20
15 Thesis contains only a few sentences relevant to the subject and does not contain
results 10
5
9
Writing Well and Avoiding Academic Misconduct
● Plagiarism, collusion, and cheating in exams are all forms of academic misconduct which the
University takes very seriously.
● Every year, some students commit academic misconduct unintentionally because they did not
know what was expected of them. The consequences for committing academic misconduct can be
severe, so it is important that you familiarise yourself with what it is and how to avoid it.
● The University’s Skills Hub guide to study skills gives advice on writing well, including hints and
tips on how to avoid making serious mistakes. You will also find helpful guides to referencing
properly and improving your critical writing skills. Make use of the resources there.
● If you are dealing with difficult circumstances, such as illness or bereavement, do not try to rush
your work or hand in something which may be in breach of the rules. Instead you should seek
confidential advice from the Student Life Centre. The full University rules on academic
misconduct are set out in the Examination and Assessment Regulations Handbook.
● If you do not think that you should be taking this assessment, or if you have any additional
questions, please get in touch as soon as possible.
Marking Process and Ensuring Marking Fairness
● The University takes several steps to ensure marking fairness.
● Assessment Convening: The module convenor is usually the lead marker, designs the
assessment, and specifies the marking criteria.
● Calibration: When there are several markers:
● They calibrate their marking expectations and scale, usually in a meeting before the marking
begins. They usually mark a few submissions together and discuss the characteristic of poor to
excellent works using the marking criteria.
● The module convenor checks the marks and distributions by each marker to ensure similarity and
fairness across groups. By analysing the data, any unexplained anomalies are identified and
compensated.
● Moderation: A sample of the marked submissions/scripts (including some from each mark
classification) is then looked at by a moderator to confirm the accuracy of the marking (if they
feel there is a problem they may recommend a third person to review all scripts).
● External Examination: The sample is then sent to an external examiner to confirm that the
marking has been appropriate and internal procedures have been followed.
● Finally, a Module Assessment Board (MAB) then considers the overall distribution of marks,
taking into account any complaints or problems raised concerning each module, and a Progression
and Award Board (PAB) agrees awards for successful candidates and resit/sit opportunities for
failed modules/assessments.

Assessments Handbook
[Research Project (Marketing)]
[N1628]最先出现在KJESSAY历史案例。