| Module title | BMM5582 Business Research |
| Assignment Weighting | 60% |
| Assignment type | Research proposal |
| Submission Deadline | This Week |
| Learning outcomes (see Module Handbook for all learning outcomes) | LO1: Outline specific research aims and objectives, as well as the boundaries of research project. LO2: Investigate the existing body of knowledge in line with identified research aims and objectives and produce a comprehensive literature review, including a theoretical framework. LO3: Appraise the various approaches to the investigative method and data collection, compare and contrast a range of research methods and justify their usage. LO4: Propose a small-scale research project into a chosen business, management, marketing, finance and accounting, international business, or economics topic, and develop a research proposal suitable for undergraduate level. |
Submission Deadline: This Week
Guidance for Individual Research proposal 2000 words
Assignment Overview:
The research proposal should evaluate the purpose of the study, research questions, initial literature review, justification of methodology and analysis methods and feasibility.
Proposal Format:
– The report should be professionally formatted and include the following sections:
– Title Page
– Abstract
– Table of Contents
– Introduction
- Aim , objectives, Research Questions
- Rationale
- Gap
– Literature Review
– Research Methodology
– Findings and Analysis
– Conclusion and Recommendations
– References
– Appendices (if applicable)
Selection of Research Topic
Choose a topic related to contemporary business practices. This could range from marketing strategies, financial management, human resource practices, innovation, sustainability, to any other relevant area.
Your topic should address a specific problem, challenge, or opportunity within the chosen area.
Research Questions
Formulate a clear and concise research questions or hypothesis that your report will address.
Literature Review:
Conduct a thorough literature review to provide background and context for your research. Summarise key theories, models, and findings from previous studies.
Identify gaps in the current knowledge that your research aims to fill.
Research Methodology:
Describe the research design and methodology you will use to answer your research question . This may include qualitative methods, quantitative methods, or a combination of both.
Justify your choice of methodology and explain how it is appropriate for your research objectives.
Data Collection:
Detail the data collection process. Specify whether you are using primary data (e.g., surveys, interviews) or secondary data (e.g., industry reports, academic articles). ( No data collection must be done )
Ensure ethical considerations are addressed in your data collection process.
Data Analysis:
Provide the analysis method ( No analysis must be carried out)
Feasibility Analysis
Gantt Chart
Conclusion and Recommendations:
Summarise the key findings of your research.
Provide actionable recommendations based on your findings. Discuss how these recommendations can be implemented in a business context.
Referencing:
Use APA style referencing for citing sources. Ensure all references are properly formatted and included in the reference list.
Assessment Criteria:
Your assignment will be assessed based on the following criteria:
The relevance of your answer to the question.
• Your use of sources and the knowledge of the subject shown.
• The level of critical analysis shown.
• The structure and development of the argument within your work.
• The independence of thought shown.
• The standard of written presentation – including spelling, grammar, and syntax.
• The correct use of referencing and scholarly conventions.
| How will my assignment be marked? |
| You will be marked against the attached criteria (see following page). Make sure you focus on demonstrating: Knowledge and understanding Structure and argument Analysis and the ability to make conclusions. Sources and Evidence Professional written style and clarity |
| Classification: Criterion: | Exceptional 1st 100, 95 | Outstanding 1st 88, 85, 82 | 1st 72,75,78 | 2.1 68, 65, 62 | 2.2 58, 55, 52 | 3 48, 45, 42 | Fail 38, 35, 32 | Abject Fail 25, 20, 10, 0 |
| Knowledge & Understanding | Polished grasp of subject. Astute and authoritative approach to complexity. | Comprehensive and confident grasp with strong sense of subject complexity. | Thorough understanding evident and well applied to specific assessment task. | Secure, general understanding and reasonable application to assessment task. | Sound knowledge relevant to the assessment task. | Limited knowledge shows basic understanding. Some awareness o the context of the assessment task. | Faulty understanding of assessment task or concepts. Irrelevant or mostly absent content. | No understanding of assessment task or concepts. Irrelevant or absent content. |
| Structure, Argument | Effective and integrated over- arching argument or structure, clear, insightful synthesis. Highly creative understanding of topic | Effective overall argument with clear and insightful connections between claims. Creative understanding of topic. | Clear and logical focus and direction with valuable connections made between claims. Good level of creativity. | Well-focused on the question with some clear connections made between claims and some overall direction. Some creativity. | Addresses the topic with some direction and makes some connections between claims or different parts of artefact/assignment. | Argument is weak and difficult to detect. Connections made between statements limited | Lack of argument. Faulty connection between statements. | No argument. Many faulty connection between statements. |
| Analysis and Conclusions | Original and searching analysis, critical appraisal of task and judicious conclusions. | Searching analysis with pertinent conclusions drawn. | Insightful analysis throughout with appropriate conclusions drawn. | Strong analysis of salient illustrative examples. Some general conclusions drawn. | Some conclusions drawn based on some reasonable comparisons and examples. | Basic analysis. Remains descriptive, little evaluation or comparison. Few clear conclusions. | Insufficient evaluation or attempt to make comparisons. Conclusions illogical insufficient. | No evaluation or attempt to make comparisons. Conclusions illogical or absent. |
| Sources & Evidence | Extensive and evaluative use of evidential support for argument. | Extensive use of evidence with some evaluation. | Clear support of argument with well selected evidence. | Draws on relevant independent sources and evidence to support claims. | Makes simple use of evidence from recommended sources. | Relies on superficial statements with little supporting evidence. | Lack of evidence or relevant sources. | No evidence or relevant sources. |
| Adherence to Referencing Conventions, Technical Skills | Flawless referencing or technical skills. | Flawless referencing or technical skills. | Excellent referencing or technical skills. | Consistent and accurate referencing or technical skills. | Largely consistent accurate referencing. or technical skills. | Limited referencing/ adherence to convention or technical skills. | Inadequate referencing or technical skills. | Inadequate or no referencing or technical skills. |
| Written/Visual/ Oral Style & Clarity | Professional and sophisticated with exceptional clarity and coherence. Excellent, controlled, confident delivery, pace, and audience engagement. | Professional and fluent with great clarity and coherence. Confident delivery, pace and audience engagement. | Fluent and accurate with great clarity and coherence. Mostly confident delivery, pace and audience engagement. | Clear and coherent. Good delivery, pace and audience engagement | Some lapses of clarity. Some expression is ineffective. Satisfactory delivery, pace and audience engagement | Adequate, but awkward expression throughout with little clarity. Poor delivery, pace and audience engagement | Inadequate and unclear presentation. Impaired communication. Error-strewn. | Grossly inadequate and unclear presentation. Severely impaired communication. Error-strewn. |
Assessment Criteria Grid
