ASSESSMENT: Individual research proposal
ASSESSMENT: Individual research proposal
| Module Code: | BMO0112 |
| Module Title: | Research Methods |
| Assessment Type
(Initial) |
Individual research proposal |
| Academic Year | 2021/22 Block 8 |
| Assessment Task | |
|
Research Proposal
· You are required to write a research proposal in the format of a report · Your report should develop your own research idea and demonstrate your knowledge of research methods · Word limit: 2,500 words · 100% of your grade for this module
|
|
| Duration: N/A | Word Count: 2,500 |
| Task specific guidance:
Title: The title should reflect the general research aim.
1.0 Background to the research (context): In this section, you should introduce your research topic, and explain its relevance and importance. The section should also provide a rationale for the chosen research topic. You should provide some secondary information about the theoretical context, industry, or subject you are researching, which provides rationale for the study. This section should lead the reader logically to the research aim and research objectives. (approx. 500 words)
Research Aim: You should develop an overarching aim for your research. This statement will form the clear theme throughout your research paper and will follow logically from your background section. Your research aim should be written to suit the research approach you have decided to take. (approx. 100 words)
Research Objectives: Your research aim should be supported by logical and coherent research objectives. These objectives should contribute to you addressing your overall research aim and should be numbered. (100 words)
2.0 Literature review: You must identify the main theoretical underpinnings of your work and the key authors in your field and provide a succinct summary of key areas of literature. You should refer to key authors and themes from academic literature relevant to your proposal. The purpose of the literature review is to explain what we already know in your chosen area of research. This will show your understanding of the key concepts in your research question and the relationships between them. Indicate any models that you may wish to apply, test or review. (800 words)
Present a conceptual framework which reflect your literature review. This sets out formally the concepts you intend to include in your data collection and the proposed relationship between them. The conceptual framework becomes a guide for your data collection and analysis. This should normally be presented in a diagram with some narrative explanation. (approx. 100 words)
3.0 Methodology: This section must detail the approach you have decided to take for your research and provide appropriate justification for and details of that approach. This section needs to provide specific explanation of how you are planning to collect and analyse data to answer your research aim/objectives and explain why you think the methods you choose are appropriate for answering your research question. You should structure this section as follows:
a. Research approach. Specify the research approach you intend to adopt. This will normally be either quantitative or qualitative. Justify why you have chosen this and link to your research question/objectives. (approx. 200 words) b. Data collection. How do you intend to collect your data? This will normally be using questionnaires or interviews. Describe the process and justify why it is appropriate for your research question/objectives (approx. 300 words) c. Sample. Who are you intending to collect data from? Explain why this is an appropriate and representative sample to enable you to address your research aim and objectives. Research ethics should also be a consideration. (approx. 300 words) d. Data analysis. How do you propose to analyse your collected data? Describe how you would analyse your data. (approx. 100 words) Please ensure there is a direct link between the research aim/ objectives and the methods you choose.
4.0 References Please provide a full list of references used in your proposal.
|
|
| General study guidance:
· Cite all information used in your work which is clearly from a source. Try to ensure that all sources in your reference list are seen as citations in your work, and all names cited in the work appear in your reference list.
· Reference and cite your work in accordance with the APA 7th system – the University’s chosen referencing style. For specific advice, you can talk to your Business librarians or go to the library help desk, or you can access library guidance via the following link: o APA 7th referencing: https://library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/
· It is possible to arrange 1:1 consultation with a LIDC tutor once you have planned or written a section of your work, so that they can advise you on areas to develop. · Do not exceed the word limit.
|
|
| Assessment criteria |
|
| Learning Outcomes |
|
This section is for information only.
The assessment task outlined above has been designed to address specific validated learning outcomes for this module. It is useful to keep in mind that these are the things you need to show in this piece of work.
On completion of this module, students will need to demonstrate:
1. Demonstrate critical awareness of a range of methodological approaches used in research in their field of study 2. Demonstrate knowledge of social research methods in a contemporary subject area relevant to their award 3. Act autonomously in the conceptualisation and design of research relating to their area of study 4. Make a proposal for a piece of relevant subject research Please note these learning outcomes are not additional questions.
|
| Submission information |
Appendix 1 PGT Assessment Criteria
These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed. They describe different levels of performance of a given criteria.
Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
The grades between Pass and Merit should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module. The higher-level categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the basic requirement, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.
PGT Generic Assessment Criteria
| Unacceptable | Unsatisfactory | Pass | Merit | Distinction | |||||
| 0 – 9 | 10-19 | 20-34 | 35-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |
| Fulfilment of relevant learning outcomes | Not met or minimal | Not met or minimal | Not met or partially met | Not met or partially met | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
| Response to the question /task | No response | Little response | Insufficient response | Adequate response, but with limitations | Adequate response | Secure response to assessment task | Very good response to topic; elements of sophistication | Clear command of assessment task; sophisticated approach | Full command of assessment task; imaginative approach demonstrating flair and creativity |
PGT Generic Assessment Criteria
| Unacceptable
A superficial answer with only peripheral knowledge of core material and very little critical ability |
Unsatisfactory
Some knowledge of core material but limited. |
Pass
A coherent and logical answer which shows understanding of the basic principles |
Merit
A coherent answer that demonstrates critical evaluation |
Distinction
An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding knowledge of material and critical ability
|
|||||
| 0-9 | 10-19 | 20-34 | 35-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |
| Conceptual and critical understanding of contemporary / seminal knowledge in the subject | Entirely lacking in evidence of knowledge and understanding | Typically, only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts | Knowledge of concepts falls short of prescribed range Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts | Marginally insufficient. Adequate knowledge of concepts within prescribed range but fails to adequately solve problems posed by assessment | A systematic understanding of knowledge; critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights; can evaluate critically current research and can evaluate methodologies | Approaching excellence in some areas with evidence of the potential to undertake Research. Well-developed relevant argument, good degree of accuracy and technical competence | Excellent. Displays (for example): high levels of accuracy; evidence of the potential to undertake research; the ability to analyse primary sources critically. | Insightful. Displays (for example): excellent research potential; flexibility of thought; possibly of publishable quality. | Striking and insightful. Displays (for example): publishable quality; outstanding research potential; originality and independent thought; ability to make informed judgements. |
| Presentation | Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility | Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility | Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility | Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Minor errors in language | Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Possibly very minor errors in language | Good standard of presentation; length requirement met, and academic conventions followed | Very good standards of presentation | Professional standards of presentation | Highest professional standards of presentation |
| Understanding | Limited insight into the problem or topic | Limited insight into the problem or topic | Limited insight into the problem or topic | Some insight into the problem or topic | Practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline | Independent, critical evaluation of
full range of theories with some evidence of originality |
Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis | Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis | Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis |
| Use of evidence and sources to support task | Some irrelevant and/or out of date
Sources |
Some irrelevant and/or out of date
Sources |
Some irrelevant and/or out of date
Sources |
Limited sources | Comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship
|
Complex work and
concepts presented, key texts used effectively |
Full range of sources
used selectively to support argument
|
Full range of sources
used selectively to support argument
|
Full range of sources
used selectively to support argument
|
| Development of ideas | Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent | Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent | Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent | Argument not fully
developed and may lack structure |
The argument is developed
but may lack fluency
|
Argument concise and
explicit
|
Coherent and compelling
argument well presented
|
Coherent and compelling
argument well presented
|
Coherent and compelling
argument well presented
|
| Ethics, sustainability & Responsibility
(subject area) |
Not considered or no relevance | Consideration at a superficial level with minimal relevance to subject. | Considered with relevant solutions identified but no detail relevant to the subject. | Considered with relevant solutions identified but little detail relevant to the subject. | Considered with relevant solutions identified and adequate detail relevant to the subject. | Wide consideration relevant solutions identified and appropriate detail relevant to the subject. | Full consideration of implications for subject with range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for subject with extensive range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for subject with full range of solutions discussed in detail. |
