ASSIGNMENT BRIEF: PROJECT BASED RESEARCH STUDY
| Module title | Dissertation |
| Module code | BUS7B63 |
| Module leader | Dr. Delyth Wyndham |
| Assessment title | Dissertation |
| Launch date | 01/09/2022 |
| Submission deadline | Submission date will depend on your programme route and start point. Please see the Assessment and Feedback section on Moodle. |
| Expected date for return of marks and feedback | Three weeks following submission via Turnitin. |
| Module outcomes assessed | Develop a viable research/project question/problem with a supporting aim and objectives that demonstrates rigour and is ethically sound. Search literature relating to the proposed research/project topic in a systematic manner and synthesise and critically evaluate the literature to produce a narrative collating the review findings in support of a specific research/project question/problem. Develop, outline and work within a comprehensive research/project framework which integrates relevant methodologies/approach; design; quality measures and any ethical issues related to the research/project. Analyse data in a critical manner appropriate to the methodology/approach outlined and present and review the results/findings in an appropriate format. Synthesise the research/project results/findings and propose strategic recommendations of relevance to both practitioners and academics. |
| Assessment weighting | 100% |
| Word count | 18,000 (+/-10%) Abstract – Word Guide: 300 (excluded from total) Introduction, research/project question/problem, aim and objectives – Word Guide: 1,800 – 2,500 Background and context – Word Guide: 3,000 – 4,000 Methodology – Word Guide: 2,100 – 2,800 Analysis & Discussion – Word Guide: 7,500 – 8,000 Conclusion – Word Guide: 1,800 – 2,500 |
| Assessment task details | |
| During this module, you will complete a dissertation research project (project based research study). You can either: Sign up to a specific project task proposed by a supervisor or Pitch and implement a project that you have conceived and developed to meet the research study assessment requirements Type A: The project task outlines detail the rationale for the research and the data that will be analysed. See specific project task outlines for full details of the project. Type B: In your pitch you will need to outline the rationale for your research. You will need to clearly identify the management problem and provide full details of the data you intend to analyse. Your project pitch must be reviewed and agreed by your supervisor in the first instance and then approved by the module lead or programme leader. Your pitch must be: relevant to your MBA; propose sufficient data analysis; and needs to be achievable within the module timeframe. Over the course of the module you will: retrieve the data specified in the project task outline/your pitch and/or design your data collection approach; secure approval; prepare/collect the data; and analyse the data. You will write up your research as a dissertation in the format outlined in the module handbook by following the project based research study template provided. You are reminded that your choice of dissertation topic should reflect the subject area represented in the programme route you are studying. You should not sign up for a Type A project or pitch a Type B project which requires you to deviate from this rule. |
| Submission instructions | |
| A single Word or PDF document only, containing your final dissertation and reference list. Appendices are permitted. A template is provided on the module space, which must be followed. Please submit online via the appropriate Turnitin submission on the module space on Moodle. | |
| Hints and tips | |
| You have opted to submit a project based research study. Your dissertation should follow the project based research study template provided on the module Moodle space. In your submission you must demonstrate a substantive analysis of organisational/business data as described in the specific project task outline or in your project pitch. If you are unsure about the content of any dissertation chapter or chapter section please review the content provided on Moodle and speak to your supervisor during supervision where you are unclear. Suggested chapter word limits are provided in the dissertation Marking Criteria below. Take on board the feedback you are provided in your draft submission opportunities. Follow all submission instructions given in the module handbook. All submitted work is expected to observe academic standards in terms of referencing, academic writing, use of language etc. Failure to adhere to these instructions may result in your work being awarded a lower grade than it would otherwise deserve. | |
| Marking and moderation | |
| See the dissertation Marking Criteria below. All dissertation submissions are marked by two members of the MBA programme team. Submissions are also reviewed by the external examiner before presentation to board. | |
| Employability Skills Applied | |
| On successful completion of this module, you will have had opportunities to demonstrate achievement of the following Employability Skills: | |
| CORE ATTRIBUTES | |
| Engaged | ü |
| Creative | ü |
| Enterprising | ü |
| Ethical | ü |
| KEY ATTITUDES | |
| Commitment | ü |
| Curiosity | ü |
| Resilient | ü |
| Confidence | ü |
| Adaptability | ü |
| PRACTICAL SKILLSETS | |
| Digital fluency | ü |
| Organisation | ü |
| Leadership and team | |
| Critical thinking | ü |
| Emotional intelligence | |
| Communication | ü |
Get help with BUS7B63 Dissertation with HND Assignment Help
| Marking criteria | ||||||||||
| Learning Outcome 1 | Under 30% | 30 – 39% | 40 – 59% | 60 – 69% | 70% & over | |||||
| Abstract Introduction, research/project question/problem, aim and objectives | No abstract or abstract is not accurate. No introduction or a weak or overly brief introduction. Aim/objectives not specific. Poor choice of topic and/or research/ project question/ problem. Context or background is limited. | Minimal abstract. Inadequate or unfocused introduction. Deficiencies in aim/objectives or question/ problem or relevance. | Abstract is adequate summary. Adequate introduction though could benefit from further development. Obvious MBA (management/ organisational) relevance with satisfactory aim and supporting objectives. | Abstract is a good summary. Good introduction to support the research/ project question/ problem Relevant aim/objectives. Context clear of some use to practitioners. | Abstract provides precise insight into the research study. Introduction is clear and concise. MBA aligned and of clear use and relevance to practitioners. Specific question/ problem and aim/objectives providing insight. | |||||
| 10 Marks | 0 – 3 | 3 – 4 | 4 – 6 | 6 – 7 | 7 – 10 | |||||
| Learning Outcome 2 | Under 30% | 30 – 39% | 40 – 59% | 60 – 69% | 70% and over | |||||
| Literature Review (or Background and Context) | Literature search seriously inadequate, possibly using poor quality websites as sources. | Literature search has some deficiencies and limited range of sources, may lack clear citations. | Adequate literature search conducted using a range of academic sources including current journals but limited critical review. | Good literature search conducted using a broad range of academically recognised sources supported with some critical review. | Comprehensive literature search conducted using an extensive range of academically recognised sources with critical evaluation and synthesis. | |||||
| or the Literature search summary (for Literature based research studies) | No summary or a very brief account of the literature search. Literature search seriously inadequate. Limited sources and/or poor-quality websites identified as sources. Lacks correct citations. No evaluation or rationale for the sources. | Minimal summary of the literature search. Literature search has some deficiencies or is not fully documented. Limited range of sources identified. May lack clear citations. No rationale for the sources selected is presented. | Basic summary of the literature search. No clear evidence of a structured literature search presented. Adequate range of academic sources including current journals identified. Limited clear rationale for the sources selected. | Good summary of the literature search. Some evidence of a structured literature search. Search conducted identified a broad range of academically recognised sources. Selection criteria applied and some critical evaluation to select relevant sources. | Detailed summary of the literature search. Evidence of a systematic and comprehensive literature search. An extensive range of academically recognised sources related to the review question are identified and presented in a structured format. Evidence of critical selection and evaluation of relevant sources drawn from the literature search. | |||||
| 20 Marks | 0 – 6 | 6 – 8 | 8 – 12 | 12 – 14 | 14 – 20 | |||||
| Learning Outcome 3 | Under 30% | 30 – 39% | 40 – 59% | 60 – 69% | 70% and over | |||||
| Methodology | Absent or inappropriate description of research or choice of method/ approach. | Poorly explained and/or justified choice of method/ approach. No ethical considerations. | Appropriate method/ approach explained but gaps in design. Implementation adequate. Ethical issues briefly addressed. | Method/ approach well suited to problem; good implementation. Ethical issues and study limitations acknowledged. | Method/ approach very well suited to problem; high standard of implementation. Ethics and study limitations are fully recognised. | |||||
| 15 Marks | 0 – 4 | 4 – 6 | 6 – 9 | 9 – 11 | 11 – 15 |
| Learning Outcome 4/5 | Under 30% | 30 – 39% | 40 – 59% | 60 – 69% | 70% and over | |||||
| Results and/or Findings, Analysis & Discussion | Descriptive analysis. Poorly structured, inadequate use of evidence. Improper use of models and techniques. | Some structure to argument and attempt to evaluate evidence. Basic use of analytical models and techniques. | Reasonably structured argument and use of techniques and models. Structured argument and attempt to evaluate. | Good use of appropriate models and techniques. Well-structured argument with evaluation of evidence. Relevant conclusions for practitioners. | Very good use of appropriate models and techniques. Clear and well- structured argument with synthesis of ideas and competent evaluation of evidence. Fully justified conclusions with relevance to practitioners. | |||||
| 25 Marks | 0 – 7 | 7 – 10 | 10 – 15 | 15 – 18 | 18 – 25 | |||||
| Learning Outcome 5 | Under 30% | 30 – 39% | 40 – 59% | 60 – 69% | 70% and over | |||||
| Conclusion | Limited and basic conclusions. Negligible relevance to practitioners in the field. | Conclusions are weak, lacking depth and insight and of limited use and application to practitioners. | Conclusions demonstrate some insight into the research/ project question with potential application to practitioners. | Relevant conclusions providing some insight for practitioners. Satisfactory supporting justification. Further research suggested. | Fully justified conclusions with clear relevance to practitioners. Evidence of synthesis of ideas. Limitations recognised. Further research areas identified. | |||||
| 10 Marks | 0 – 3 | 3 – 4 | 4 – 6 | 6 – 7 | 7 – 10 | |||||
| Criteria | Under 30% | 30 – 39% | 40 – 59% | 60 – 69% | 70% and over | |||||
| Coherence, originality and depth of research study | Incoherent. Limited or no originality. Chapters combine to provide little or no depth of study. | Some coherence. Limited originality. Chapters combine to suggest the study may have satisfactory depth when re-visited. | Coherent throughout with an attempt at originality. Chapters combine to produce a study of satisfactory depth. | Good standard of coherence with elements of originality presented in a combination that provides insight and depth. | Highly coherent throughout. Research study has clear originality and depth and incorporates creativity and/or innovation. | |||||
| 10 Marks | 0 – 3 | 3 – 4 | 4 – 6 | 6 – 7 | 7 – 10 | |||||
| Criteria | Under 30% | 30 – 39% | 40 – 59% | 60 – 69% | 70% and over | |||||
| Presentation, quality of English and referencing | Serious inadequacies where the meaning is unclear. Presentation not to a business standard. Does not confirm with Glyndwr Harvard conventions. | Some deficiencies in English, but does not render dissertation incomprehensible Glyndwr Harvard referencing is largely correct. Presentation generally acceptable. | Few and minor deficiencies in English. Glyndwr Harvard referencing is generally accurate. Presentation acceptable. | High standard of written English. Glyndwr Harvard referencing is complete and accurate throughout. Good presentation throughout. | Excellent standard of written English. Glyndwr Harvard referencing is complete and accurate throughout. Excellent presentation. | |||||
| 10 Marks | 0 – 3 | 3 – 4 | 4 – 6 | 6 – 7 | 7 – 10 |