Faculty of Business & Management

Assessment Brief 2023/24

A: Assessment Details

Module Title Management Research Methods

Module Code BU7002
Module Leader Dr Farid Ullah and Abdul Muqeem
Component Number 1 of 1
Management Research Project Proposal, 3000 words, 10% (+, -)
Assessment Type, Word Count & Weighting
100% weighting (Pass Mark is 50%)
Submission Deadline Friday 10th May 2024 by 12.00 PM
Submission Instructions Turnitin link
Feedback Return Date Friday 7th June 2024, by 17:00 PM

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 with 10% + (3300), 10% -(2700); 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, aim, 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 evaluation, and a Gantt Chart. A reference list
following the APA 7 referencing style is available at the end of this document.

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.

Page 1 of 7
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2023/24

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 preliminary 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.

Ethical Approval

The ethics form needs to be completed and submitted to the allocated supervisor by 17 May 2024. A One-Day
Dissertation Workshop will be held on 18 June 2024, which marks the formal start of the BU7001 Module. Ethics
Approval must be obtained well before this date. The allocated supervisor list will be available in April 2024.

Obtaining ethical approval requires you to demonstrate that you have considered and assessed the ethical risks
associated with your project and have a plan in place to negate these or reduce them to an acceptable level.

Once your ethics form is fully completed and signed by you and your allocated supervisor, your supervisor will
submit it to the ethics committee for approval. Please DO NOT collect any data until you have got full ethical
approval.

You should use the template that is available on the Ethics Portal website (MSc MBA ONLY). You should also
consult the guidance notes for completing the form given in the following link:

(https://portal1.chester.ac.uk/FacultyofBusinessandManagement/pages/research.aspx).

The Moodle space includes instructions on how to prepare your research proposal. After receiving feedback on
your research proposal, you are encouraged to meet with your assigned supervisor to discuss your proposal
feedback.

The assessment criteria for this assignment is provided in the marking scheme/rubric below.

Page 2 of 7
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2023/24

E: Key Resources

Core Text:

 Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2019). Business research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
 Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Giardina, M. D., & Cannella, G. S. (2023). The SAGE handbook of qualitative
research (Sixth). SAGE.
 Gray, D. E. (2019). Doing research in the business world (2nd ed.). SAGE.
 Saunders, M., Thornhill, A., & Lewis, P. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson.

Additional Texts

 Bell, J., & Waters, S. (2018). Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers (7th ed.). Open
University Press.
 Denscombe, M. (2021). The good research guide: research methods for small-scale social research
projects (7th ed.). Open University Press.
 Easterby-Smith, M., Jaspersen, L. J., Thorpe, R., & Valizade, D. (2021). Management and business
research (7th ed.). SAGE.
 Punch, K. (2014). Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.
 Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in
applied settings (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 Silverman, D. (2022). Doing qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE.

F: Submission Guidance
 Students should submit work 16.00 pm on the deadline date via the appropriate ‘Turnitin submission’ link
on the Moodle module page. Please check your email confirmation to ensure you have submitted it to the
correct place.

 You must submit assessments in Microsoft Word format ONLY.

 The file must be not larger than 40MB.
 Your writing is expected to conform to Standard English in terms of spelling, syntax, and grammar.
 You must include your Assessment Number (J Number) in the header or footer.
 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:

Page 3 of 7
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2023/24

o Title of your work

o Module title and code
o Module Leader
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 (Appendix 5C Level 7)
APA Reference Guide
University Generic Marking Criteria (Appendix 5F Level 7)
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.

Page 4 of 7
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 Crisp succinct Crisp succinct A well A good working Title largely Title may not Title fails Title reveals lack Title bears Title bears no
(25%) title accurately title accurately expressed title title that could be captures the focus adequately adequately to of clarity about little relation to relation to the
summarises the summarises the that more succinct of the project. articulate the capture the the focus of the the research research idea.
Appropriate essence of the essence of the incorporates proposed essence of the proposed idea.
and concise research focus. research focus. all key Thorough aims Appreciation research; proposed research. Aims missing.
title dimensions. that effectively shown of the use language may research; may Aims missing
Excellent aim Convincing aim break the topic / of aims to break be clumsy. contain Aims missing or or have no Topic is
Main research that provides a that provides a Convincing question into its the topic into ambiguities. poorly relevance to unfeasible with
question and very clear and very clear and aim. component parts. component parts. Limited use of articulated with the title. zero prospect
aim logical logical However, there aims to break Little use of aims little or no of delivery.
framework for framework for Feasible topic. Largely feasible may be gaps or the topic into to break the relevance to Topic is
Importance delivery of the delivery of the Overall clarity topic with some ambiguities. component topic into title. unfeasible with
feasibility of main project. main project. minor clarifications parts. component zero prospect
research, required. Areas of plan need parts. Little or no of delivery.
background Topic feasible & Entirely feasible revision for Plan needs prospect of
and clear original and topic feasibility. substantial Plan needs overall topic
objectives objectives revision. substantial feasibility.
clearly stated revision.

Literature Exceptional Comprehensive Good critical Good analysis of Some good Basic analysis of Inadequate Descriptive, not Isolated, Isolated,
Review (30%) critical analysis critical analysis analysis of relevant literature analysis of some relevant analysis. Largely analytical. disconnected disconnected
of relevant of relevant relevant overall; but may relevant literature; literature but descriptive and Elements statements statements
Depth, literature literature. literature. lack criticism or but weaknesses without provides little missing and no indicating lack indicating lack
breadth & showing Some material comprehensive- and/or gaps. underlying logic insight into the proper structure of thought. of thought.
relevance of substantial Authoritative may be dated. ness. and structure. context for the to discussion.
reading and insight. argument with a Reasonable research focus. Lack of
related clear logical Excellent Logically structure; logical Research gap Structure Lack of evidence of
analysis Authoritative progression organisation of structured; well- flow. Research identified but Poorly confused or evidence of reasoning. No
argument with a leading to a ideas; cogent reasoned gap identified but may be too structured. incomplete. reasoning. discernible
Quality of the clear logical highly original & development discussion. may be too general or too Research Little organisation of
structure of progression valid research of argument. Research will general or too inconsequential. Little or no problem not discernible material
the analysis in leading to a idea Research will contribute to filling inconsequential. paraphrasing identified. organisation of relative to
determining highly original & contribute to an identifiable Paraphrasing with excessive material subject.
the research valid research A detailed filling an research gap. A reasonable weak and reliance on Paraphrasing relative to Research
problem idea conceptual identifiable conceptual model inaccurate. direct non-existent. No subject. problem not
model research gap. A good developed quotations. attempt to use or Research identified.
Clarity of An extremely developed conceptual model Lack of detail apply APA problem not
conceptual complex A useful and developed and clarity in Research system. identified. No conceptual
model or conceptual clear conceptual problem may not model
framework model conceptual model be identified No knowledge of No conceptual development
developed model development conceptual model
developed An incomplete model development
conceptual
model
Criteria 90-100% 80-90% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19% 0-9%

Methodology Exceptional Advanced Confident Understanding of Limited apparent Explanation of Research Research Research Research
(20%) understanding understanding of understanding research paradigm understanding of research paradigm barely paradigm not paradigm not paradigm not
and clear research of research and rationale for research paradigm paradigm addressed. addressed. addressed. addressed.
Rationale and expression of paradigm. paradigm. selecting it. but reasonable attempted but
research research Rationale for Rationale for justification. little evidence of Expression of Inappropriate, Inaccuracies Inaccuracies
paradigm. philosophy. selecting it & selecting it & Appropriate understanding. ideas insufficient terminology; of expression of expression
implications of it implications of methods Research methods to convey clear inadequate and and and
Research An erudite and, clearly it clearly explained & explained but Expression and meaning. inappropriate vocabulary vocabulary
population succinct conveyed. conveyed. justified. limited justification style reasonably vocabulary render render
and sampling justification of clear but lack Research meaning of meaning of
method. chosen methods A well-argued Appropriate Generally Basically sound sophistication. methods listed No attempt to written work written work
that are entirely justification of methods competent approach to data but hardly or describe, let extremely completely
Research apt. Rationale chosen methods explained. approach to data analysis but Research ineptly alone justify, unclear. unclear.
specific for rejected that are entirely Justification analysis but may somewhat lacking methods described. selected
methods and methods clearly apt. Rejected includes not be fully aligned in depth and described but method. Two of Research
justification. explained. methods rejected with research crispness. not justified. Data analysis research method
identified. methods. topic. Some additional unlikely to Data analysis method, missing
Methods of Means of data Basic analysis of methods would provide useful inappropriate. means of data
data analysis. analysis will Excellent Competent Generally good ethical issues & have been insight into the analysis, Means of data
maximise insight approach to approach to consideration of research appropriate. research topic Ethics form only ethics form analysis
Ethical issues into research data analysis data analysis. ethical issues & standards. Little submitted – missing. missing.
and research topic. that aligns with research depth of Data analysis Ethics form not inadequately
standards research topic. Competent standards but may evaluation. superficial. acceptably covered. Ethics form
Clear, mature analysis of lack depth in completed. missing.
and deep insight Excellent ethical issues places. Superficial
into ethical consideration & research consideration of
considerations and discussion standards. ethical issues &
and research of ethical issues research
standards. & research standards.
standards.
Plan of Work Sharp focused A very clear A complete & A competent A basic Some key Insufficient key Confusion Insufficient Plan missing
(10%) understanding. summary of all appropriate summary of key identification of elements elements regarding what detail provided
key elements structure that elements, though important key identified. Many identified to constitutes key to assess .
Understandin Outstanding, that is well will facilitate one or two may be elements, though overlooked, enable plan to elements deliverability.
g of key structure with structured and fit implementatio overlooked. several may be be adequately
deliverables effective use of for purpose. n overlooked. Basic structure implemented. An inadequate No structure.
and elements. written & graphic A good structure lacking. Confused ‘to do’ list that is May be a
components. Deliverable with A deliverable overall. There may A basic structure Sequencing of understanding of far from being vague and
Quality of plan a clear plan that be elements that that would benefit components not these. complete or unfocused
structure and Entirely sequencing of covers all the are somewhat from additional logical. Key comprehensive sentence or
organisation. deliverable. the key stages key vague or components. Not components No discernible paragraph.
Provides a of the project practicalities, undeveloped. particularly logical may be missing. structure. Just a Insufficient detail
Practicality of detailed ‘route though some in terms of layout list of ‘to do’ provided to
plan. map’ to final detail could be and sequencing. items that is enable
submission. amplified. probably not implementation
complete. of the project.
Criteria 90-100% 80-90% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19% 0-9%

Written Exceptional Very well- Well Clear, fluent, Clearly written, Expression and Expression of Lack of clarity, Inaccuracies Inaccuracies
Expression clarity and written, with expressed, confident coherent style reasonably ideas insufficient very poor of expression of expression
(10%) coherence; accuracy, flair fluent, expression; expression; clear but lack to convey clear expression; style and and
highly and persuasive sophisticated appropriate reasonable range sophistication. meaning; inappropriate, vocabulary vocabulary
Written sophisticated expression of and confident vocabulary and of vocabulary and Limited inaccurate or terminology; render render
expression, expression. ideas expression; style adequate style vocabulary. unprofessional inadequate and meaning of meaning of
vocabulary highly effective Limited or no terminology. No inappropriate written work written work
and style Near perfect Near perfect vocabulary High standard of Overall proof reading evidence of vocabulary extremely completely
spelling, spelling, and clear style accuracy in competence in proof reading unclear unclear
Grammar, punctuation and punctuation and spelling, spelling, Inaccuracies in Many serious
spelling, elegant syntax. flowing syntax Near perfect punctuation and punctuation and spelling, Many errors in errors of Many serious Many serious
punctuation spelling, syntax syntax, although punctuation and spelling, spelling, errors of even errors of even
and syntax punctuation there may be syntax are too punctuation and punctuation and basic spelling, basic spelling,
and syntax some errors frequent and syntax – often syntax that punctuation punctuation
indicative of a repeated. No interfere with and syntax and syntax
careless evidence of meaning and that that
approach and proof-reading. clarity of undermine or undermine or
poor proof- expression block clarity of block clarity of
reading. meaning and meaning and
discussion discussion

Referencing All sources All sources All sources Sources mainly Sources usually, Sources not Referencing Referencing No meaningful No references.
(5%) acknowledged. acknowledged & acknowledged acknowledged and but not always, always incomplete, highly inaccurate attempt at
Consistently, meticulously and correctly mostly accurately acknowledged; acknowledged; inappropriate or or absent. referencing. Not using APA
Accurate and appropriately, listed/cited. A listed/cited. listed/cited. referencing references too inaccurate. referencing.
appropriate authoritatively comprehensive generally often incorrectly <5 items listed <5 items
application of and meticulously list of accurate, but with cited/listed. <10 listed items, most of which listed. None
the APA 7 too many Over-reliance on which may lack are not directly relevant or
listed/cited. An references.
referencing inaccuracies and using direct relevance. relevant. Likely vaguely so.
outstanding list
system for errors quotations and to be all web
listing and of references website URLs. Incompetent in
Little attempt to sites
citing sources that is Reference list knowledge
authoritative, apply APA
lacks source A shallow list of system. Almost and
current and balance. items (<10), Incompetent in application of
original. complete
which may lack knowledge and APA system
Inclined to rely too source balance reliance on web
application of
much on direct sources.
APA system
quotations.
.
Tendency to over-
use web sources