You are advised to begin thinking about your topic and supporting literature for your project as early as possible. You need to choose a problem in an area of business theory (so that there is published research available) and where there is a reasonable chance of access to primary data. A reasonable chance of access is where you already have access to a proportion of respondents for your research that enables you to answer your research question. It is recognised that for some students there may be limited opportunities to work with business organisations for primary data collection, so that some projects may emphasise desk research using secondary sources. Nonetheless you are encouraged, where possible, to include primary data, which could include, for example, interviews or a small-scale survey. If you have access to an organisation, for example through a part-time job,

Brief introduction to module

This module aims to provide you with the knowledge and skills that are required to undertake independent research on a topic that you will be chosen for your final dissertation where you determine the methodology and approach. In so doing you will take significant strides on the path to becoming an independent learner, and feel able to undertake other research tasks, with the help of your supervisor. The module will provide you with an understanding of research philosophies; introduce you to a range of qualitative and quantitative methodologies and methods of analysis. You will develop your intellectual reasoning ability as well as your ability to write critically. During the lecture and seminar classes you will be given opportunities to discuss and evaluate a range of research methods and approaches.

Overall assessment (part 1 and 2)

Course work

• Research Project Proposal (35% of module marks)

Word count: 2,000 words++

• International Business Project (65% of module marks)

Students are not to be penalised for exceeding the word count. They are encouraged to collect and analyse data, as well as discuss the findings and put forward recommendations, which requires a lengthier contribution.

Module learning outcomes:

• Be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of research method process, including identifying the research area, topic and question, critical literature review, research philosophy

and design, sampling and sampling techniques, data collection and analysis, synthesis and research dissemination

•

Demonstrate and understand the ethical consideration and issue as well as value of ethical procedures when conducting research in business

•

Be able to work collaboratively within a learning community, time management and self- management as well as the ability to use research skills in a wider context

•

Be able to develop an appropriate and feasible research proposal to a specific context

100-80%

79-70%

69-60%

59-50%

49-40%

39-20%

19-0%

20

%

KNOWLEDGE

AND

UNDERSTAND

ING

Has a comprehensive/ detailed knowledge of the area to be investigated and provides a good rationale for a feasible research project, as well as use of appropriate references to support the arguments.

Extensive range, depth and complexit y of relevant material.

Clearly defined range and depth of relevant material in all areas.

Clearly defined range and depth of relevant material in most areas.

Comprehens ive and relevant detail but lacking depth in some areas

Has good working knowledg e and relevant detail but lacking depth in most areas.

Moderate range with some relevant material, little depth.

Poor understan ding of topic, significant irrelevant material included, did not answer the question.

30

%

APPLICATION

OF

KNOWLEDGE

Demonstration of knowledge

through the use

of relevant examples, explanation of key concepts and terms

Shows

detailed applicatio n of relevant concepts and theories to issues of study.

All relevant concepts are covered and applied and are relevant to the area of study.

Most relevant concepts are covered and applied and are relevant to the area of study.

Understands most concepts which are related to study.

Understan ds some concepts which are related to study.

Understa

n ds concepts but applicati o n is

incomple

t e or

inapprop ri ate.

Very limited use of concepts and theories. Applicatio n is not given or considere d.

Always uses extremely detailed and relevant examples to support argument.

Significan tl y uses detailed and relevant examples to support argument.

Mostly uses many

relevant examples to support argument.

Sometimes uses mostly relevant examples, some examples provided out of context of argument.

Not many relevant examples used to support argument.

Limited and irreleva

nt

example s used.

No use of examples to support argument.

40

%

EVALUATION

of applicable research design, assessment of ethical issues Can select appropriate research approach, and instruments of data collection &

Well integrated study with in- depth, original and critical analysis

In depth and

critical

Well integrated study with original and

critical analysis.

Critical evaluatio n of data. All conclusio ns

Largely integrated study with a good level of original and critical analysis.

Critical evaluation of most data. Most

Mostly integrated study with some

original and critical analysis.

Evaluates using a selection of techniques

Shows an

acceptabl e level of original

and

critical analysis.

Evaluates using a limited selection

Predomin

a tely descriptiv e

, without originalit y or critical analysis.

Unable to make judgeme

nt s about

Wholly

descriptiv e.

Unable to judge the value of informatio n.

analysis, using a wide range of techniques appropriate to the subject.

Originality/Criti cality

Create new knowledge and going beyond

what is expected

(i.e. extra papers/further readings). Can

critically review evidence supporting research/literatur e gap, as well as

its reliability, validity and significance and can investigate contradictory information and identify reasons for contradictions.

evaluation of material. Draws

detailed conclusion s relevant to study.

relevant to study.

conclusions relevant to study.

to judge information. Some

conclusions are not

drawn from the information.

of technique s to judge the value of informati on.

Conclusio ns are not drawn from the informati on.

relevance and significanc e of informatio n.

10

%

COMMUNICA

TION AND

PRESENTATI

ON

Can write effectively and coherently, using academic style, observes the structure, provides good quality visuals

REFERENCIN

G STYLE

Referencing according to Harvard style, including in-text citations

and

full list of references

Always communic

ates effectively and excellentl y in an appropriat e format/ language

in a clear and concise manner. No

spelling,

grammatic

al or referencin g errors.

Always communicat

es effectively in an appropriate format/lang uage in a clear and concise manner. Few

spelling,

grammatica

l or referencing errors.

Communica tes effectively in an appropriate format/lang uage. Usually presents information in a clear and concise manner. Some

spelling, grammatical or referencing errors.

Mostly communicat

es in an appropriate format/lang uage. Presents information

in a clear and mostly concise manner, sometimes meaning is not clear.

Some

spelling,

grammatical or referencing errors

Meaning is clear and format

conforms to basic requireme nts.

Limited use of language. Major

spelling, grammati cal and referencin g errors.

Meaning

is clear but use of language

and format

is

inappropri ate.

Significant spelling, grammatic al and referencin g errors.

Does not communic

ate effectively and meaning is unclear. Does not use appropriat e format/ language. Significan t spelling,

grammatic al and referencin g errors.

MARKING CRITERIA

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION

Is there a clear introduction that discusses the topic of research and rationale (what & why)? Has the research problem (including knowledge gap) been stated?

Are the aim and objectives, research questions and/or hypotheses (including variables) clear, relevant and achievable (testable)? Have they been further explained in terms of how and to what extent they were answered/tested?

Do aims, objectives etc. go beyond mere listing, i.e. do they involve explanation, comparison, criticism or evaluation?

Does the introduction indicate the content of the other chapters?

70 – 100%

60 – 69%

50 – 59%

40 – 49%

20 – 39%

0 – 19%

• Comprehensive background information, definitions and rationale.

• Clearly and explicitly identifies aim, objectives and appropriate

research questions / hypotheses.

• Has detailed critique of how they were arrived at and potential issues.

• Detailed but succinct identification of content of remaining chapters.

• Good background information,

definitions and rationale.

• Clearly identifies aim, objectives and research questions / hypotheses.

• Partial critique of aim, objectives and research questions/hypotheses and potential issues.

• Adequate identification of content of remaining chapters.

• Some good background information but lacking in some aspects.

• Identifies aim, objectives and research questions /hypotheses but lacking detail in some aspects.

• Lacking a clear rationale of how they were derived.

• Adequate but not succinct identification of content of remaining chapters.

• Background information has

some relevance but is lacking in some key aspects.

• Adequate identification of research area(s) but questions/hypotheses not well articulated or poorly explained

• Limited explanation of how they were derived

• Some indication of content of remaining chapters.

• Does give some

indication of research

areas but very limited background information.

• Lacks adequate

identification of aim, objectives and research questions / hypotheses

• Very limited explanation of how they were derived.

• Limited indication of content of

further chapters

• Irrelevant or very limited background information.

• Does not identify aim

and / or

objectives

and / or research questions / hypotheses.

• No explanation of how they were derived.

• No indication of content of

the remaining chapters.

MARKING CRITERIA

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION

Has a comprehensive range of relevant literature, pertinent to the aim and RQs of the thesis been selected for review? Is the impression given that extensive reading on the topic and around the problem took place and has been relayed?

Are the key themes and issues surrounding the research questions clearly drawn from the literature?

Does it attempt to compare and contrast a number of relevant concepts, models or theories in a critical manner or is it merely descriptive?

Is the theoretical framework used in an effective manner?

Are the sources used up to date (current, state-of-the-art publications), where appropriate, and do they have sufficient academic weight?

Have sources been acknowledged, cited, and referenced fairly and properly?

Has the text been well paraphrased and a critical stance is detectable?

Are the references at the end of the thesis complete and in the appropriate Harvard referencing style?

Has literature gap been clearly identified and addressed (including recent citations) at the end?

70 – 100%

60 – 69%

50 – 59%

40 – 49%

20 – 39%

0 – 19%

• Comprehensive appraisal of relevant literature.

• Critical

appraisal of relevant literature.

• Clear relation to research questions.

• Citations are

correct and appropriate

• Bibliography wide ranging and correct in all aspects.

• Comprehensive appraisal of relevant literature

• High level of critical appraisal.

• Related to research questions.

• Citations mainly correct.

• Bibliography wide ranging but with minor errors.

• Adequate appraisal of mostly relevant literature

• Some critical appraisal.

• Not always relevant to research questions.

• Citations correct but some errors.

• Bibliography wide ranging but with some errors.

• Adequate discussion of some relevant literature

• Tends towards the descriptive with very limited critical appraisal.

• Some relevance to research questions.

• Some citations correct but a number of errors.

• Bibliography limited and

with some errors.

• Literature is limited in

scope or irrelevant.

• Little appraisal and very descriptive.

• Limited relevance to research questions.

• A large number of citation errors.

• Bibliography limited with many errors.

• Poor and limited use of literature.

• Vague understanding of relevance of literature.

• Student

appears to have relied heavily on too few texts.

• No or very few citations used.

• Bibliography very limited and does not adhere to the Harvard System.

MARKING CRITERIA

GENERAL COMMENTS

THIS SECTION

ON

Is there a clear rationale for methodology, i.e. is the student aware of nature and types of research, e.g., are distinctions between qualitative and quantitative, positivist and interpretative methods addressed?

Have the alternatives been discussed and have the advantages and disadvantages of chosen methods been evaluated? Has this understanding informed their choice of approach?

Is the research design/methodology described – in relation to all the research onion layers – justifiable? Are the research instruments well designed with all questions etc. relevant to research aims?

Has target population (be it human or non-human) been clearly described, appropriate sampling techniques names and explained, sample size (both for primary and secondary data sets) addressed? Is sampling process described in detail in relation to the units of analysis, e.g., who the respondents were; how many were there; why and how were they selected?

Were research instruments approved by supervisor before implementation?

Is there evidence of care and accuracy in the data collection process?

Are data analysis methods discussed in detail? Are all instruments of data collection specifically named, data sets for secondary data specified, survey design addressed – when applicable – in sufficient detail?

Are all the applicable methods of data analysis, including statistical tests, qualitative analysis methods, and the like clearly names and explained?

Are validity and reliability separately discussed – not only theoretically, but in relation to potential threats and errors? Has the reliability test been performed, if applicable?

Has a pilot study been evidenced and evaluated?

Has the scope of the study been clearly delineated, and all the limitations discussed? Has the methodology been evaluated in retrospect with suggestions for improvement if the research were to be undertaken again?

Have the applicable ethical issues/concerns (as related to the whole research project) been identified and explained in terms of how they were mitigated?

70 – 100%

60 – 69%

50 – 59%

40 – 49%

20 – 39%

0 – 19%

• Has a very clear and well- articulated academic rationale for methodology

• Has clear academic rationale for methodology and research approach but

• Some academic rationale for methodology/ approach but

• Limited methodological rationale.

• Methods have some relevance

• Basic rationale for methodology.

• Methods are mainly

• No attempt at rationale for methodology.

• Describes processes that

and research approach.

• Methods highly relevant to purpose with evidence

of exploring alternative methods and choices well justified.

• Sampling correct in all

aspects and clearly explained.

• Critical evaluation

• Overall approach very well planned and executed.

perhaps not always well articulated?

• Methods largely relevant to purpose with

evidence of exploring alternative

methods but

incomplete justification.

• All elements of sampling theory addressed with some being well done.

• Evaluation may lack a critical approach in

some aspects

• Generally well planned and executed.

lacking detail in areas.

• Methods not

relevant to purpose in all aspects but has some good aspects.

Justification for choice is limited.

• All elements of sampling theory adequately addressed

• Evaluation has been attempted

but is limited in terms of a critical approach.

• There may be shortcomings in the planning and execution.

to purpose but have been insufficiently

planned and executed.

Justification for choice is very limited.

• Sampling theory addressed but limited with omissions.

• Evaluation is attempted and applied but is poor.

• Overall planning and execution weak.

irrelevant to purpose or are poorly explained and difficult to understand.

• Sampling theory extremely

weak and

lacking detail.

• Limited evaluation

with very little actual application.

• Poorly planned and executed.

do not relate to the purpose.

• No sampling theory discussed.

• No or very limited and vague evaluation.

• Execution

fails to achieve

minimum standard required.

MARKING CRITERIA

GENERAL SECTION

COMMENTS

ON

THIS

Are the findings presented relevant to aims and objectives?

Does any statistical presentation make the most of the data collected?

Are any qualitative data analysis results categorised and presented systematically?

Is there any evidence provided of secondary data analysis, if applicable?

Are the findings presented clearly and interestingly for the reader to follow, i.e. in tables, charts etc. embedded in the text, numbered and captioned?

Are the appendices used appropriately for bulky and/or less interesting/essential data interpretation?

FOR QUESTIONNAIRES Do the appendices contain a data summary sheet (including the final sample size/number of responses), a summary questionnaire and details of statistical analysis undertaken?

FOR INTERVIEWS Do the appendices contain additional evidence for data collection and exemplary excerpt(s) of interview transcripts?

FOR OBSERVATIONS Do the appendices contain back up data on observations carried out?

FOR SECONDARY DATA do the appendices contain sources where data were collected and how they were analysed?

70 – 100%

60 – 69%

50 – 59%

40 – 49%

20 – 39%

0 – 19%

• Clear and unambiguous presentation of data.

• Relevant, rigorous and thorough analysis.

• Excellent discussion and evaluation of findings.

• Excellent linkage to the literature.

• Clear presentation of data with few errors.

• Relevant and thorough analysis.

• Good discussion and evaluation of findings.

• Good linkage to the literature but some omissions.

• Generally clear presentation of data but some errors.

• Relevant analysis but lacks thorough approach.

• Discussion and evaluation of findings lacks rigour but

some useful findings.

• Clear but partial linkage to the literature but many omissions.

• Presentation of data is limited or lacks clarity.

• Analysis is basic and

pedantic in many areas.

• Discussion and evaluation is superficial or

relies on unsupported assertions.

• Attempts linkage to the literature but not in a clear manner.

• Unclear or confusing presentation of data.

• Analysis is basic and pedantic in all areas.

• Discussion and evaluation very limited or shows lack of understanding of evidence collected.

• Minimal linkage to the literature.

• Much or all of the data has been presented in an unclear manner.

• No analysis or trivial.

• No or very limited discussion of findings.

• No or very weak linkage to the literature.

MARKING CRITERIA

GENERAL COMMENTS

THIS SECTION

ON

Do the conclusions clearly follow on from the findings? Are the conclusions well-grounded in the evidence and arguments presented?

Have the aim, objectives and research questions been clearly reviewed/revisited and addressed?

Are the conclusions discussed in context and are they applicable to a wider scenario?

Are some sound business/management recommendations put forward (preferably naming the stakeholders in question) and are they consistent with the findings and conclusion?

Is the future research direction indicated at the end?

70 – 100%

60 – 69%

50 – 59%

40 – 49%

20 – 39%

0 – 19%

• Conclusions

valid and consistent with analysis.

• Conclusions

valid and generally consistent with analysis.

• Conclusions generally valid and partially consistent with analysis.

• Some valid conclusions but generally inconsistent with analysis.

• No obvious conclusions drawn or they are inconsistent with analysis.

• Conclusions do not relate to purpose.

• No attention to aim, objectives

• Comprehensive reference to aim, objectives and research questions.

• Conclusions discussed in detail and context and recognised applicable to wider scenario.

• For work based dissertation recommendatio ns are consistent with findings and conclusions.

• Good reference

to aim, objectives and research questions.

• Conclusions discussed in

context and recognised briefly that

applicable to a wider.

• For work based dissertation

some logical recommendation

s.

• Some reference to aim, objectives and research questions.

• Conclusions discussed in context and some recognition of wider application.

• For work based dissertation some recommendatio ns but may be questionable

based on findings and conclusions.

• Limited reference to aim, objectives and research questions.

• Conclusions briefly discussed in context and wider context.

• For work based dissertation

limited recommendation

s.

• Very little attention to aim, objectives and

research questions.

• Conclusions very briefly discussed in context.

• For work based dissertation very few appropriate recommendation

s.

and the research questions.

• Conclusions not discussed in context.

• For work based dissertation no

recommendatio ns

MARKING CRITERIA

YES

(or few errors)

NO (or many

errors)

Are the overall style and presentation in accordance with specifications?

Standard title page

Length 5,000++ words

Word count given

Correct pagination

Correct margins

Double spacing for text

Single spacing for indented quotes and references

Numbered chapter and section headings

Tables and figures numbered and captioned correctly

Appropriate font/bolding and italics

Is the abstract a concise (max 1 page) summary of the aim, methodology and findings/conclusion?

Is the contents page clear, concise and informative?

Are appendices, tables and figures listed and appropriately referred to?

Has the thesis been spell and grammar checked?

Has the academic style been followed?

Are citations and references in the required (UoR Harvard) referencing style?

Does the thesis have an overall coherence?

Have paraphrasing issues been kept to minimum?

70 – 100%

60 – 69%

50 – 59%

40 – 49%

20 – 39%

0 – 19%

• Fulfils all requirements and follows an acceptable style in a correct manner.

• Easy to read and leads the reader along

a well- argued path.

• Has an overall coherence.

• Fulfils most requirements and follows an acceptable

style in a generally correct manner.

• Presented so that it is easy for reader to follow.

• Is generally coherent although it may lack coherence in parts.

• Attempts to follow an acceptable

style and

fulfils most of the requirements.

• Not presented with

maximum clarity and sometimes

difficult to follow the argument.

• Some evidence of coherence.

• Generally attempts to conform to requirements and adequately executed.

• Some aspects of presentation unclear.

• Has limited coherence.

• Does not meet some of the key requirements.

• Fails to follow an acceptable

style and some aspects unclear.

• Very little coherence.

• Does not meet many of the key requirements

• Fails to follow an acceptable style and often unclear an untidy.

• No coherence