Get Cheapest Assignment in Australia, UK, US, UAE, Canada and NZ Order Now

MG5615 Understanding Business and Management Research

0 Comments

Assessment Title: MG5615 Understanding Business and Management Research Methods Individual Assignment
Module Leader: Professor Francesco Moscone
Distribution Date:  
Submission Deadline: 12:00 noon on 30/04/2020
Feedback by : 29/05/2020
Contribution to overall module assessment: 60%
Indicative student time working on assessment: 120
Word or Page Limit (if applicable): 2000 Words (not including references)
Assessment Type (individual or group): Individual

Main Objective of the assessment

This is an individual assignment. You are required to submit a critical analysis of research topic in relation to a chosen topic of study/area of interest in the context of Business Studies. This research topic normally relates the research issues in your master programme subject area.

Description of the Assessment

You need to undertake a significant literature review, which outlines the underpinning methodologies and the research method(s) adopted in previous research that incorporates a range of viewpoints and perspectives. It is essential to provide a critical analysis that applies the knowledge and understanding acquired during the module to evaluate theoretical and technical aspects of related research methodologies and methods.

MG5615 Understanding Business and Management Research
MG5615 Understanding Business and Management Research

You are expected to demonstrate both breadth and depth of understanding of relevant academic literature of the chosen topic. You are required to explain, discuss and evaluate the methodologies applied in the reviewed literature.

Typically, your essay should have (a) an executive summary (b) Introduction (c) literature review (d) Analysis, discussion and evaluation of research methodology (e) Findings and what you have learnt from this assignment (f) References (Harvard Referencing System).

In this individual assignment, you are expected to use relevant materials from academic research books and academic empirical journal articles (ABS

ranking listed journals) in your subject area to support your analysis and arguments when formulating your assignment. Your analysis, discussion and evaluation should be backed with appropriate academic references and examples where necessary.

This assignment should be presented with 12 pt. Times New Roman Text with line spacing of 1.5. The word limit is 2000 words (excluding references). Note that assignment below this word limit by more than 10% would result in decrease in the overall achieved mark by 10%. Proper referencing of all ideas, concepts, theories and quotes used in your work is essential. Normally you are required to present no less than 15 academic journal article references. The Harvard referencing system must be used, details of which are contained on your handbook. Failure to employ a clear and appropriate system of referencing will be penalised.

An example under development (for MG5547 Marketing Communications) 5 marking criteria all equally weighted

Criterion Grade descriptors according to: Content appropriateness of material, relevance, feasibility, quality of solutions
Knowledge A* to A- B+ to B- C+ to C- D+ to D- E+ to E- F
(15%) Excellent, Very good, relevant Fair range of Mainly descriptive Work does not Little or no
Evidence of Comprehensive, evaluation, detailed information and use answer, satisfactory demonstrate adequate content
reading in the area detailed and well and well organised of terminology but but not complete. evidence of relating to the
of Research organised and response. Good not complete and/or Evidence of some understanding the topic understudy,
Methods and the structured review of overview of the some errors. Limited reading, but little question at hand few relevant
relevant topic selected factual topic understudy, evidence of the topic real research effort and/or the wider facts, and/or
understudy information on the topic understudy, with and the use of factual information understudy, from relevant reading in is shown. Some barely adequate general aspects of the topic major factual errors, too short
  correct emphasis on to address the the area of the topic references not well understudy. and no evidence
  the question at hand. question at hand, understudy, presented and not Limited information of reading
  Evidence of reading of which is consistent including the consistent. Lack of and content, many  
  a wide range of and mainly error reading list and/or knowledge in some factual errors,  
  relevant literature free. Evidence of course notes. Few areas of the topic and/or little  
  sources including effective use of the grammatical errors. understudy, relevant evidence of  
  effective use of the reading list with Limited, but to the question at reading.  
  reading list. Makes some evidence of adequate hand and some    
  very good use of wider reading. referencing factual errors.    
  factual evidence to Competent   English is adequate    
  support arguments. English and fluent        
  Well sustained writing.        
  effective style of Good referencing        
  writing that is          
  appropriately concise          
  or expansive. Accurate          
  Referencing          
Understanding (15%) Use of Normative literature to explain the conceptual aspects of Rsearch Methods and the relecvant topic understudy A* to A- Demonstrates comprehensive grasp of concepts, theories and methods relevant to the topic understudy, and in particular the question at hand. Articulate explanation of relevant theory.  Offers a largely complete answer to the question, which is consistent, cogent and expands the bounds of the question. B+ to B- Demonstrates very good understanding of many of the relevant concepts, theories and methods relevant to the topic understudy, Summarises and extrapolates pertinent issues, but not always consistent or clear in explanation. C+ to C- Demonstrates understanding by translating, reorganising, and/or rephrasing relevant concepts, theory and methods relevant to the topic understudy, Some evidence of understanding aided by reading, not always lucid. Some areas of issues/topics presented may be weak or not complete D+ to D- Satisfactory understanding, explanation and summarisation of concepts, theory and methods relevant to the topic understudy. However, mainly descriptive answer, which is not complete and offers little insight from, sources other than lecture material and the reading list. The response lacks depth and perception; variable and/or limited grasp of appropriate content and context E+ to E- Vague, unconvincing and inconsistent response, but sufficient to create basis for an adequate answer. Little or no real explanation, summarisation or interpretation of concepts, theories or methods relevant to the topic understudy. Little or no evidence of the use of lecture material or the reading list. F No real explanation, summarisation or interpretation of concepts, theories or methods relevant to the topic understudy. Errors of understanding and no evidence of the use of lecture material or the reading list.
Analysis (15%) Synthesis of literature with practical examples to emphasise important issues A* to A- Very effective identification of relevant concepts, methods and theory with evidence from a wide variety of reading and practical examples. Comprehensively breaks down arguments, theories and structures. Very good analytical arguments effectively based on thorough review of evidence, and effective B+ to B- Good, relevant and comprehensive breakdown of arguments with good recognition of relevant concepts, theory and methods. Analysis is based on some evidence linked to practice. Logically structured and links topics to make points but within clear boundaries of the question at hand. C+ to C- Adequate breakdown of subject but not comprehensive. Some ability to discern and discuss theory, methods and concepts pertinent to the topic understudy, but within limited boundaries of the question at hand. Generally logical and clear arguments presented using a clear structure and D+ to D- Basic analysis of concepts, theory and methods relevant to the question at hand. However, correctly identifies some content and context relevant to the topic understudy, with fair discussion. Some structure to argument, but shallow and not always logical and makes few or no links to practice. E+ to E- Very limited or no analysis of concepts, theory and methods relevant to the topic understudy, e.g. project management and the response fails to tackle the question at hand. Inadequate structure and/or logic to the arguments presented and the response offers no F No evidence of significant analytical ability, arguments presented is unclear or erroneous, and the response lacks proper structure and logic and offers no evidence or links to practice.
 
linking of topics within the wider domain of the topic understudy.
  breakdown of topics, but offer few examples or evidence from practice.   evidence or links to practice.  
Evaluation A* to A- B+ to B- C+ to C- D+ to D- E+ to E- F
(15%) Extremely effective, Fair judgement of Some adequate At most some Little or no No effective
Use of literature, Relevant and relevant concepts, evaluation based on minimal evaluation evaluation is evaluation is
practical examples comprehensive theory and methods an adequate if based on limited or offered of offered of any
and own opinions evaluation of concepts, relevant to the topic simple analysis. simple analysis of concepts, theory concepts, theory
to draw theory and methods understudy, within May identify some some concepts, and methods and methods
conclusions and pertinent to the topic the scope of the concepts, theory theory and methods relevant to the relevant to the
justify arguments understudy, and the question at hand. question at hand. Some development and methods relevant to the topic relevant to the topic understudy, that topic understudy, or the question at topic understudy, or the question at
  Expresses personal of major and/or understudy, but the may be shallow, hand. hand.
  perspectives, with minor issues, arguments and weak or vague. The    
  some self-criticism some judgement evaluation is not response lacks    
  where appropriate and correctly expressed well developed. critical evaluation.    
  recognises limits of but based on Work is mainly      
  own judgement and arguments from descriptive with      
  knowledge. Good source material with some analysis but      
  critical thinking, and some not endowed with      
  evaluates issues and limitations incisive judgement      
  material beyond the          
  scope of the question.          

A

Submission Instructions

Coursework must be submitted electronically via the University’s WISEflow system. The required file format for this report is Adobe PDF. Your student ID number must be used as the file name (e.g. 0123456.pdf). You must ensure that you upload your file in the correct format and use the College’s electronic coursework coversheet. Please note that submissions of ‘.pages / .docx etc’ documents will not be accepted and must be converted to approved format.

The electronic coursework coversheet must be completed and included at the beginning of all coursework submissions prior to submitting on WISEflow.

An example under development (for MG5547 Marketing Communications) 5 marking criteria all equally weighted

Criteria Grade descriptors
Text Box: Brunel Business School
Literature Review A. Clear demonstration of a sophisticated, critical and thorough understanding of the role and nature of Marketing Communications and its diverse elements of marketing communication mix with several appropriate references B. Clear demonstration of a well-developed, critical and comprehensive understanding of the role and nature of Marketing Communications and its diverse elements of marketing communication mix with some appropriate references. C. Demonstration of a critical and substantial understanding of the role and nature Marketing Communications supported and its diverse elements of marketing communication mix with a few references. D. Provides evidence of some critical understanding of the role and nature Marketing Communications and its diverse elements of marketing communication mix with at least one reference or few inappropriate references. E. Work does demonstrate evidence a partial but uncritical understanding of the role and nature of Marketing Communications and its diverse elements of marketing communication mix with no references. F. Work does not demonstrate understanding of the role and nature of Marketing Communications and its diverse elements of marketing communication mix and there is absence of references
Creativity in the use of Marketing Communications tools A. {Relevant explanation Here} B. {Relevant explanation Here} C. {Relevant explanation Here} D. {Relevant explanation Here} E. {Relevant explanation Here} F. {Relevant explanation Here}
Research Methodology            
Analytical Skills including campaign Goals and Social Responsibility            
Overall Structure            

Academic Misconduct, Plagiarism and Collusion

Any coursework or examined submission for assessment where plagiarism, collusion or any form of cheating is suspected will be dealt with according to the University processes which are detailed in Senate Regulation 6.

You can access information about plagiarism here.

The University regulations on plagiarism apply to published as well as unpublished work, collusion and the plagiarism of the work of other students. Please ensure that you fully understand what constitutes plagiarism before you submit your work.

University’s Coursework Submission Policy

Please refer to the College’s Student Handbook for information on submitting late, penalties applied and procedures.

College’s Coursework Submission Policy

Please refer to the College’s Student Handbook for information relating to the College’s Coursework Submission Policy and procedures.

* this can be found at the bottom of the page under the ‘Documents’ section *

Extenuating Circumstances Policy

Please refer to the College’s Student Handbook for information relating to extenuating circumstances and procedures.