Posted: September 12th, 2022

3000 words Management Research Methods

A: Assessment Details
Module Title Management Research Methods
Component Number 1 of 1
Assessment Type, Word Count & Weighting Management Research Project Proposal, 3000 words, 100% weighting (P
Submission Deadline Tuesday 25th October 2022 by 12.00 midday
Feedback Return Date Friday 9th December 2022 by 17:00hrs

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 management research designs and methods for the chosen research project
4. To understand the ethical conduct of management research

C: Assessment Task
Assessment: (3,000 words; 100% weighting) a research proposal for the management research project. [L.O. 1-4]
Firstly, you are to identify a research area and then generate a specific research topic in that area or field. Secondly, develop a concise and focused research title. Thirdly, you are required to develop clear and focused objectives following a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timebound) approach. Prepare a 3,000-word research proposal document containing a brief introduction including background to the research, specific research question/s, aim/s, and objectives to the research, vital preliminary sources of literature review, a methodology section outlining a good understanding of the research approaches (e.g., research onion) and justification for the selected data collection techniques, ethical Assessment, and a Gantt Chart. A reference list following the APA 7th Ed referencing style which is available at:
https://portal1.chester.ac.uk/LIS/LibraryFacilities/Documents/APA%20Referencing%20quick%20guide.docx (you might need to save this first as an APA Referencing quick guide.docx)
Any relevant appendices should also be provided. A coherent structure must be provided throughout the research proposal.
Your research topic must be selected from within your MSc pathway.

D: Specific Criteria/Guidance

Research Proposal

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

Your research question/aim and objectives 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 several purposes, including:

• To outline what is already known about the topic, demonstrating that you have positioned your work in a broad body of literature and are aware of the main outcomes 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
• To help you interpret your findings

The methodology should be described and justified, including a discussion of whether to use primary, secondary, or mixed methods. A reflection on your understanding of research terminologies such as qualitative, quantitative, inductive and deductive, positivist and interpretivist, and others, as well as a rationale for the methodology used for your research project.

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

E: Key Resources

The recommended core textbooks for this module are:

• Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2019). Business research methods. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Gray, D. E. (2020) Doing Research in the Business World, 2nd Edition, SAGE
• Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education.

Additional Texts:

• Bell, J. (2014). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers. (6th ed.). Milton Keynes, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
• Bell, J., & Waters, S. (2018). Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers. Maidenhead, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
• Denscombe, M. (2017). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects. (6th ed.). London, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
• Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P.R. (2018). Management research. (6th ed.). London, United Kingdom: Sage.
• Punch, K.F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. (3rd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Sage.
• Robson, C.,& McKartan, K. (2015). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. (4th ed.). Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley.
• Silverman, D. (Ed.). (2018). Doing qualitative research. (5th ed.). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

F: Submission Guidance
• You must submit assessments in Microsoft Word format.
• The file must be not larger than 40MB.
• Your writing is expected to conform to Standard English in terms of spelling, syntax, and grammar.
• Include your word count on 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

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 Research Proposal – Structure & Marking Scheme (Rubric) (Pass Mark is 50%)

Criteria 90-100% 80-90% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19%
0-9%
Introduction
(25%)

Appropriate and concise title

Main research question and aim

Importance feasibility of research, background and clear objectives Crisp succinct title accurately summarises the essence of the research focus.

Excellent aim that provides a very clear and logical framework for delivery of the main project.

Topic feasible & original and objectives clearly stated
Crisp succinct title accurately summarises the essence of the research focus.

Convincing aim that provides a very clear and logical framework for delivery of the main project.

Entirely feasible topic A well expressed title that incorporates all key dimensions.

Convincing aim.

Feasible topic.
Overall clarity A good working title that could be more succinct

Thorough aims that effectively break the topic / question into its component parts.

Largely feasible topic with some minor clarifications required.

Title largely captures the focus of the project.

Appreciation shown of the use of aims to break the topic into component parts. However, there may be gaps or ambiguities.

Areas of plan need revision for feasibility.
Title may not adequately articulate the proposed research; language may be clumsy.

Limited use of aims to break the topic into component parts.

Plan needs substantial revision. Title fails adequately to capture the essence of the proposed research; may contain ambiguities.

Little use of aims to break the topic into component parts.

Plan needs substantial revision. Title reveals lack of clarity about the focus of the proposed research.

Aims missing or poorly articulated with little or no relevance to title.

Little or no prospect of overall topic feasibility. Title bears little relation to the research idea.

Aims missing or have no relevance to the title.

Topic is unfeasible with zero prospect of delivery. Title bears no relation to the research idea.

Aims missing.

Topic is unfeasible with zero prospect of delivery.
Literature Review (30%)

Depth, breadth & relevance of reading and related analysis

Quality of the structure of the analysis in determining the research problem

Clarity of conceptual model or framework

Exceptional critical analysis of relevant literature showing substantial insight.

Authoritative argument with a clear logical progression leading to a highly original & valid research idea

An extremely complex conceptual model developed Comprehensive critical analysis of relevant literature.

Authoritative argument with a clear logical progression leading to a highly original & valid research idea

A detailed conceptual model developed Good critical analysis of relevant literature. Some material may be dated.

Excellent organisation of ideas; cogent development of argument. Research will contribute to filling an identifiable research gap.

A useful and clear conceptual model developed

Good analysis of relevant literature overall; but may lack criticism or comprehensive-ness.

Logically structured; well-reasoned discussion. Research will contribute to filling an identifiable research gap.

A good conceptual model developed
Some good analysis of relevant literature; but weaknesses and/or gaps.

Reasonable structure; logical flow. Research gap identified but may be too general or too inconsequential.

A reasonable conceptual model developed

Basic analysis of some relevant literature but without underlying logic and structure.

Research gap identified but may be too general or too inconsequential.

Paraphrasing weak and inaccurate.

Lack of detail and clarity in conceptual model development
Inadequate analysis. Largely descriptive and provides little insight into the context for the research focus.

Poorly structured.

Little or no paraphrasing with excessive reliance on direct quotations.
Research problem may not be identified

An incomplete conceptual model

Descriptive, not analytical. Elements missing and no proper structure to discussion.

Structure confused or incomplete. Research problem not identified.

Paraphrasing non-existent. No attempt to use or apply APA system.
No knowledge of conceptual model
Isolated, disconnected statements indicating lack of thought.

Lack of evidence of reasoning. Little discernible organisation of material relative to subject. Research problem not identified.

No conceptual model development

Isolated, disconnected statements indicating lack of thought.

Lack of evidence of reasoning. No discernible organisation of material relative to subject. Research problem not identified.

No conceptual model development

Criteria 90-100% 80-90% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19%
0-9%
Methodology (20%)

Rationale and research paradigm.

Research population and sampling method.

Research specific methods and justification.

Methods of data analysis.

Ethical issues and research standards
Exceptional understanding and clear expression of research philosophy.

An erudite and, succinct justification of chosen methods that are entirely apt. Rationale for rejected methods clearly explained.

Means of data analysis will maximise insight into research topic.

Clear, mature and deep insight into ethical considerations and research standards. Advanced understanding of research paradigm. Rationale for selecting it & implications of it clearly conveyed.

A well-argued justification of chosen methods that are entirely apt. Rejected methods identified.

Excellent approach to data analysis that aligns with research topic.

Excellent consideration and discussion of ethical issues & research standards. Confident understanding of research paradigm. Rationale for selecting it & implications of it clearly conveyed.

Appropriate methods explained. Justification includes rejected methods.

Competent approach to data analysis.

Competent analysis of ethical issues & research standards. Understanding of research paradigm and rationale for selecting it.

Appropriate methods explained & justified.

Generally competent approach to data analysis but may not be fully aligned with research topic.

Generally good consideration of ethical issues & research standards but may lack depth in places. Limited apparent understanding of research paradigm but reasonable justification.

Research methods explained but limited justification

Basically sound approach to data analysis but somewhat lacking in depth and crispness.

Basic analysis of ethical issues & research standards. Little depth of Assessment. Explanation of research paradigm attempted but little evidence of understanding.

Expression and style reasonably clear but lack sophistication.

Research methods described but not justified. Some additional methods would have been appropriate.

Data analysis superficial.

Superficial consideration of ethical issues & research standards. Research paradigm barely addressed.

Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning.

Research methods listed but hardly or ineptly described.

Data analysis unlikely to provide useful insight into the research topic

Ethics form not acceptably completed. Research paradigm not addressed.

Inappropriate, terminology; inadequate and inappropriate vocabulary

No attempt to describe, let alone justify, selected method.

Data analysis inappropriate.

Ethics form only submitted – inadequately covered. Research paradigm not addressed.

Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work extremely unclear.

Two of research method, means of data analysis, ethics form missing. Research paradigm not addressed.

Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work completely unclear.

Research method missing

Means of data analysis missing.

Ethics form missing.
Plan of Work (10%)

Understanding of key deliverables and elements.

Quality of plan structure and organisation.

Practicality of plan.

Sharp focused understanding.

Outstanding, structure with effective use of written & graphic components.

Entirely deliverable. Provides a detailed ‘route map’ to final submission. A very clear summary of all key elements that is well structured and fit for purpose.

Deliverable with a clear sequencing of the key stages of the project A complete & appropriate structure that will facilitate implementation

A deliverable plan that covers all the key practicalities, though some detail could be amplified. A competent summary of key elements, though one or two may be overlooked.

A good structure overall. There may be elements that are somewhat vague or undeveloped.

A basic identification of important key elements, though several may be overlooked.

A basic structure that would benefit from additional components. Not particularly logical in terms of layout and sequencing. Some key elements identified. Many overlooked,

Basic structure lacking. Sequencing of components not logical. Key components may be missing.

Insufficient key elements identified to enable plan to be adequately implemented. Confused understanding of these.

No discernible structure. Just a list of ‘to do’ items that is probably not complete. Confusion regarding what constitutes key elements

An inadequate ‘to do’ list that is far from being complete or comprehensive

Insufficient detail provided to enable implementation of the project.

Insufficient detail provided to assess deliverability.

No structure. May be a vague and unfocused sentence or paragraph.

Plan missing

.

Criteria 90-100% 80-90% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19%
0-9%
Written Expression (10%)

Written expression, vocabulary and style

Grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax Exceptional clarity and coherence; highly sophisticated expression.

Near perfect spelling, punctuation and elegant syntax. Very well-written, with accuracy, flair 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 are too frequent and indicative of a careless approach and poor proof-reading.
Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning; inaccurate or unprofessional terminology. No evidence of proof reading

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%)

Accurate and appropriate application of the APA 7 referencing system for listing and citing sources All sources acknowledged. Consistently, appropriately, authoritatively and meticulously listed/cited. An outstanding list of references that is authoritative, current and original.
All sources acknowledged & meticulously listed/cited. A comprehensive list of references.
All sources acknowledged and correctly listed/cited.
Sources mainly acknowledged and mostly accurately listed/cited.

Sources usually, but not always, acknowledged; referencing generally accurate, but with too many inaccuracies and errors

Reference list lacks source balance.

Inclined to rely too much on direct quotations.

Tendency to over-use web sources Sources not always acknowledged; references too often incorrectly cited/listed. Over-reliance on using direct quotations and website URLs.

A shallow list of items (<10), which may lack source balance

Referencing incomplete, inappropriate or inaccurate.
<10 listed items, which may lack relevance.
Little attempt to apply APA system. Almost complete reliance on web sources.
. Referencing highly inaccurate or absent.
<5 items listed most of which are not directly relevant. Likely to be all web sites

Incompetent in knowledge and application of APA system
No meaningful attempt at referencing.

<5 items listed. None relevant or vaguely so.

Incompetent in knowledge and application of APA system No references.

Not using APA referencing.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: custom written college papers, essay custom writer service writing paper, essay writer free generator, essay writing service online free, free essay typer